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

quote:

---

I very much suspect that today's growth rates by which you are likely basing your perceived old world growth rates, are much different. I think it's safe to say that the limestone and calcareous sponges grew much faster

---

JM: It's 'safe' to say so only in ignorance. Do you have evidence to support this concjecture, or is it just conjecture? Before proceeding, am I correct in assuming that you feel that all sedimentary strata from Cambrian through Mesozoic are flood strata?CheersJoe Meert

I suppose that may depend on how we view what we see as evidence. I have heard as well, unlike Walt's theory, (and I'm pretty sure you may like it even less) that the water was brought in. Now, for most this would only be an amusing idea, at best, but here goes. Some feel that there was water outside the created universe, (outside firmament) and it was somehow brought to earth. I suppose this one might be hard to prove, or disprove. It's true one would envision large and plentiful hurricanes with so much water, and unsettled conditions on earth. I don't know why you think anyone suggested this was supposed to be a hurricane in there somewhere covering mountains? Certainly not my idea! I could see more along the lines of hurricanes running around to different sort of seas, or even if the planet was totally submerged for a short time, and making a big splash. All during the year period, and I suppose, even after, as the world's weather system gained some balance. Same with whirlpools, or cyclones, I don't think they made the flood, but may have helped muck things up. It's buried all over the back yard, it seems to me. I think it would also be wise to ask ourselves why He did it, so we don't need to repeat such a thing. One thing the old world was "filled with violence".
P.S. Heres a link to a photo of the kind of effect I meant
http://dept.kent.edu/geography/Dymon/fran-4.htm

Thanks for giving me the credit for forming the theory. Did I write the bible as well? As long as you say you want to assume that it's fine. (Long as you don't claim you can prove it). Now, if you had some documentation, like a book written by God, I would certainly take a serious look at it. Yes, if we assume there was no flood, we would have to do that. As it happens the old world is completely gone, so we would have a difficult time really getting a good understanding of how it used to work. Global End Of Life One Great Year (geology)is a course we will have to have more in depth, in the millenium. you'll have to speak fo yourselves on that one. With cyclones, hurricanes, storms, and the mysterious "great wind" going on at flood time, it seems very easy to account for just that. So I'm suppose to know how to let you know how to 'falsify' Noah's flood? You guy's have been at it for years, you tell me. I don't see how it can be, unless you can get rid of God. I accept it as a known quantity.

What do you know of our world in Noah's day? Would it be safe to say you are ignorant of it, to a very large extent? If not, we may have a few questions for you. If so, then why base too much on things you are ignorant of? What was that burrower you mentioned anyhow? Well, I feel the fossilized creatures in them may have been done so in the flood. Then again, there were some probably or possibly from before as well, so I guess it depends. You would have to know which creatures if any went extinct before the waters came. Then you could safely say they could not have been in flood deposits. (Unless they were disturbed, and redeposited in the violence).

I believe this is a picture of sand that has been either dumped or bulldozed off the roads into piles, so that can't really be the kind of effect you had in mind from Noah's flood.--Percy

quote:

---

Now, if you had some documentation, like a book written by God, I would certainly take a serious look at it.

---

I don't take texts written by man as ultimate truth. I look at evidence that no man has control over, such as the rocks. Even if the Bible were God inspired, no one is claiming that God wrote it directly. So you still don't have a book written by God.

quote:

---

So I'm suppose to know how to let you know how to 'falsify' Noah's flood? You guy's have been at it for years, you tell me. I don't see how it can be, unless you can get rid of God. I accept it as a known quantity.

---

Then your theory of a young earth/global flood is meaningless. If any and all evidence can be twisted and contorted to fit a flood model, then NOTHING is evidence of the flood theory. I have given you examples of how an old earth theory could be falsified, and yet you make no such effort. Very dishonest of you.And yes, geologists have falsified the existence of a global flood. That isn't the point. It is you saying there is evidence FOR the flood in the face of counterevidence. For your theory to replace one already supported by evidence, you have to subject your theory to the same tests. That is what evidence supports the flood and what type of evidence would falsify the flood. Until you do so, your theory has no footing.

Simple,
These discussions are a good hobby, but evolution is what is being taught in the classroom, and creationism is trying to get in. You and other creationists can continue to evade serious consideration of your speculations, but it is creationism that sits by idly, so who's winning?It seems that Creationists want to "play science" in the education classroom, but not play by the rules of science.Until Creationists "qualify" a scientific explanation in geology by having an international scientific review, the general public sees no reason to introduce it into the public school classroom. It's not censorship, since private schools and vouchers in some states allow your beliefs to be taught. Prove your case to us and the public. I guarantee they don't have as much patience with ramblings as the debaters on this forum.However, I would be in favor of teaching kids how to differentiate pseudo-science from science. Would that be fine with you to help debunk the scientific explanation?So, Simple, go ahead and stick to your beliefs and creative geology. But, until you offer a substantive hypothesis that can be disproven, don't expect Creationism in the public classroom.

duplicate msg[This message has been edited by ThingsChange, 02-14-2004]

. At least 2-3 feet of sand, eroded from offshore, was deposited high on the beach here and along the concrete walls of the resort
http://www.ambergriscaye.com/mitch/1.html
Hatteras damage from hurricane Dennis
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/...ricane/geological_impact.html
Landslides and Liquefaction (isn't this what some posters think 'doesn't exist'?)
Buildings aren't the only thing to fail under the stresses of seismic waves. Often unstable regions of hillsides or mountains fail. In addition to the obvious hazard posed by large landslides, even non lethal slides can cause problems when they block highways they can be inconvenient or cause problems for emergency and rescue operations.Occasionally large landslides can be triggered by earthquakes. In 1970 an earthquake off the coast of Peru produced a landslide than began 80 miles away from the earthquake. The slide was large (witnesses estimated it's height at about 30 meters or 100 feet), traveled at more than one-hundred miles per hour and plowed through part of one village and annihilated another, killing more than 18,000 people.In some cases, when the surface is underlain by a saturated, sand rich layer of soil, prolonged shaking can cause the expulsion of fluid from the sand layer resulting in large "sand blows" that erupt through the overlying strata.In the 1811-12 earthquakes the sand blows were enormous and covered large regions of the Missouri bootheel. Liquefaction can cause other problems as the soil loses it ability to resist shear and flows much like quick sand. Anything relying on the substrata for support can shift, tilt, rupture, or collapse.
Earthquake Effects
Just a few more photos. I think it's safe to say nature can have a mighty and varied effect. And indeed depositing sand, or eroding it in a New York minute is amoung some of it's powers.

Would that include for you, when His own finger carved out some of it in stones? Would thatbe why the Saviour of man told us He and the word that was given were one? Would there then be no Holy Spirit? And when Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away, was He pulling our leg? So then, if I could prove it false you would be inclined to believe it? But since it is true and neither of us can prove it false, you say it's meaningless! By that standard, I can see why you would tend to gravitate to the theory than can be 'falsified'. So I'm getting emty rhetoric here, instead of answers. Hmmm. OK, I'll give it just a while longer and see what substance surfaces.

Good preachin. That it?

And these things left evidence behind. Your "Noah's flood" did not.Moose

I'll have to get back tommorow on this, I been up late doing some chromosone research. (Heres what I got so far)
"I did some research on this, folks. I decided the more chromosomes you have, the more complex you must be because it is the most complex molecule in the universe; and so I arranged a bunch of animals and plants in order based upon the number of chromosomes they had.I discovered that penicillin [sic] has two chromosomes. Fruit flies have eight. There are a few missing links in there three, four, five, six, seven. I don't know where they went, but I do believe from this research that I could prove that penicillin [sic] slowly evolved into fruit flies. And then over billions of years, they got more chromosomes someplace and turned into either a housefly or a tomato. (They are twins, you know! Pretty tough to tell the difference.) They both have 12 chromosomes.And then very slowly over billions of years we got more chromosomes and became a pea. [....] Very slowly over millions of years we got enough chromosomes to become a human. Here we are folks: we have forty-six. And if we can just get two more we are going to be a tobacco plant! [.....]Why don't they teach the kids about the chromosome number as proof for evolution? I’ll tell you why: because it goes totally against the theory. You won't find that mentioned anyplace! Those are facts, folks! Chromosome number does not prove evolution. That's all a farce, of course. And evolution itself is a farce." [emphasis added]
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.htm

simple, try staying on topic rather than throwing in red herrings. If you seriously want your chromosome number strawman argument debunked then start a new thread on it elsewhere.

Simple, Utter ignorant rubbish. Kent Hovind is soooooo full of crap!There is no reason you couldn't spread the information contained of any given karyotype over a hundred + chromosomes. Clearly chromosome number & complexity aren't related otherwise you have to concede a tobacco plant is more complex than a human, right? But you don't, you & Kent are hypocrites.Either chromosome number is directly related to complexity & you have an argument, or ducks, ferns & dogs are more complex than humans. You choose, lol!This is based on the misapprehension that chromosomes contain a fixed amount of information across all species, they don't contain a fixed amount of information within an organism, let alone a single species or many species. IT is also based on the misapprehension that high chromosome number is a goal, it isn't.Why do you people listen to that twat rather than reading up on actual genetics written by actual geneticists?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall