Noah's Flood and the Geologic Layers (was Noah's shallow sea)

quote:

---

So then, we have mainstream ideas here admitting how much they do NOT know! And clearly illustrating how weak and absurd opinions can be when burdened by assumptions of old age! Science? Yes, study how things deposit at present, -good!--try to add in your godless hypothesis fine. (but seperate what we call science please from that religious rot)

---

Do you realise just how insulting you are being to every geologist here? How utterly hypocritical you sound? I can't believe that so many intelligent people have wasted their time trying to educate you in the basics of common sense, let alone science.As a geologist I feel I should volunteer my opinion; I live in Ireland. As I have said many times before, the geology of Ireland is phenomenally complex for such a small country. This could NOT have been produced by a global flood - in fact, no such event is recorded anywhere in Ireland, despite the fact that over 3 billion years of Earth history is represented there. I say 3 billion years, not because I assume an old age, but because it is physically impossible for the geology of Ireland to have formed in only 6000 YEARS!!!Oh, and about separating science from religious rot... here's a little piece from Walt Brown's site...

quote:

---

Many of the Earth’s Previously Unexplainable Features Can Be Explained by a Cataclysmic Flood.

​

The origin of each of the following is a subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each has many aspects inconsistent with standard explanations. Yet all appear to be consequences of a sudden and unrepeatable eventa cataclysmic flood whose waters erupted from worldwide, subterranean, and interconnected chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of ten billion hydrogen bombs. Consequences of this event included the rapid formation of the features listed below. The mechanisms involved are well-understood.

---

Wouldn't it just be great if Walt would follow your advice?I don't think this will make any kind of difference, but I'll say it anyway - support the meaningless crap you seem determined to inflict on us, or just admit you don't know what you're talking about and try to learn something.The Rock Hound

As if we didn't know already... the flood couldn't have happened because the explosion of water would have destroyed the Earth. Obviously the Earth is still here, so...

quote:

---

Comes with the territory when you build a house on sand.The important thing here is do geologists realize how insulting they are being to intelligence when they base everything it seems on present processes, and discount evidence for a the recent Creation?

---

THERE IS NO, REPEAT NO EVIDENCE FOR A RECENT CREATION!If you know of it, stop screwing around and post it! I can't believe that you are accusing geologists of 'building a house on sand' when you appear to be building yours on thin air. Or is your vaunted faith the rock that you're trying to base your idiocies on?I say AGAIN: It is not physically impossible for the geology of Ireland to have formed in only 6000 YEARS. If you can't refute this or even offer something more than personal incredulity, then why should anyone take what you say seriously?

quote:

---

He never mentioned religion there. Just how God made the world, in his opinion. Belief in God is not religious rot, it's faith.

---

No, simple, it's RELIGION. Noah's flood is part of the bible, which is the basis of the CHRISTIAN religion. Walt Brown wrote all that garbage because he wants the bible to be true, no matter how much he has to delude himself.

quote:

---

...the people who claim old dates on faith!

---

Bullshit. I can prove that the Earth is older than 6000 years without resorting to radiometric dates - just like every other geologist before the technology was invented. NONE of those dates are taken on faith - they are backed up with scientific research, done over a very long period of time by hard-working scientists. You would just handwave away everything they did because it doesn't fit your narrow little view of the world? Pathetic.Present ANYTHING to support what you are saying. Is that so hard?Maybe, for a creationist.The Rock Hound

Ok, simple, time to put your money where your mouth is, as it were - I started a thread a while ago on evidence for an old Earth that also completely falsified the flood. The link's here - Slightly different evidence for an old Earth.I posted some of my own research on an area in the west of Ireland, which clearly refutes a worldwide flood to me at least. If you would join in there I would love to debate with you some more.

quote:

---

In other words, as the mighty current (seems like it may have been in a particularly strong current area?) passes over, laden with whatever it happened to pick up this hour, in the worldwide flood, - then lays it down as a deposit. Looking down from the sky, if this happened, we might look down and see what looked like a new layer of mud in a creek.

---

Unfortunately geologists are well aware of how to differentiate between sedimentary deposits - and a strong flood current CANNOT cause separate layers. A series of floods with dry intervals in between would do it - not a year long catastrophic event, which would only produce a large, mostly uniform sediment bed.A new layer of mud in a creek? Ah, but this is uniformitarianism simple, and as we all know that doesn't work at all! You can't declare that modern geology is bogus because it's based on it, then you the very same thing to support your own hypothesis.

quote:

---

...I believe refers to a giant sqeezing up of the Rockies in short order, thereby trapping the creatures everywhere very quickly)

---

What are the Rockies made of, simple? Does the rock display strain characteristics consistent with phenomenally fast uplift? These are the questions you should be asking, if you want to support this hypothesis.

quote:

---

Also, as the mountains were left in this scenario, and waters receded, they would be largely unsolidified, and there would likely be huge 'hardmud slides'. Could Burgess have slid this way either?

---

No. The Burgess Shale - which even I've heard about, because it's such an amazing formation - is an example of a type of fossil called a Lagerstatten. This is a fossil whose preservation is highly unlikely, and only an exceptional set of circumstances can produce them. The Archaeopteryx fossils, which were found in the very saline Solenhofen Limestone in Germany, are also Lagerstatten. (sp? not sure about plural.)As far as I know, the Burgess Shale fauna was preserved because the sediment was very highly permineralised, which caused the soft-bodied organisms to become coated with silicates and whatnot after their death, and left a perfect 3-D imprint of them in the rock. Any disturbance AT ALL, let alone a flood, would have destroyed them completely. The Shale shows no features consistent with what we know about strong water action. We conclude that this formation could not have formed during the flood or any flood for that matter.I'm still waiting on something resembling an answer to my previous post.The Rock Hound

Aw and I was just about to join in too... Looks like I'll have to go find another thread with simple...

Simple - I can prove that the Earth is old and the Flood never happened. You feel like hearing it?If I go to the trouble of posting something huge, I don't want to see you handwaving it away with "well maybe god just made it look like that". I'm not prepared to spend my time trying to debate with you if that's your attitude.I also have a question - why should geologists assume that the sedimentary processes we see today are radically different to those in the past?The Rock Hound

So much to get to, so little time...Ok, here's the basis of my argument: So far, we have no reason to assume that geological processes in the past were radically different to those that we see today. We also find that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that those processes were, in fact, quite similar if not identical - evidence left in sedimentary structures, volcanic layers, etc. that is very close to what we observe today.Knowing this, we look at geological formations and are able to recognise the different environments of deposition - i.e. the different conditions under which the sediment was laid down and altered. In Ireland, we see a huge variety of environments changing over time, representing (in conventional geology) millions of years of climate change.In flood 'geology', this must have occurred in less than a year, under very specific conditions. Even if the processes were accelerated to incredible speeds (which we also have no reason to assume) they would not produce the geological formations seen today. There are simply too many changing environments, not to mention later deformation and faulting that juxtaposed the beds.In summary, one year is just not enough. There are too many unreasonable assumptions in flood 'geology', starting with the cast-iron premise that the flood MUST have happened. This assumption has no basis, unlike the assumption of uniformity that conventional geology makes about past geological processes.

quote:

---

Today's processes, as a whole do not explain how things worked in the old, or pre flood world. Unless we assume the 2 worlds were the same.

---

Simple, there is no evidence of a pre-flood world, or of a flood for that matter. Where is the boundary? What formations should I be looking at? Can creationists pinpoint ANYWHERE in the world where the flood boundary is seen?

quote:

---

As far as your hypothesis, we forgot an imporant one for old age believers.

---

That's "Theory", not hypothesis. Get your facts straight, no matter how rare they might be.The Rock Hound

Hey, I can't tell you what to believe - but I can tell you that if the flood happened, there was some serious miracle-making going on... I think it's just a parable. It is a pretty good one - interesting plot, which is more than I can say for a lot of the stuff I've read - but still just a parable.

---

"How can I believe in God? I answer to a higher power than him."