Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   REAL Flood Geology
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 61 of 137 (365534)
11-23-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Adminnemooseus
11-22-2006 9:35 PM


OK - Reopened
How about these premises?:
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
C. 4500 years ago it rained hard all over the Earth, for 40 days and nights, because God made it such. Let's not worry about the water source, the temperature effects of condensation, etc. There were also be other water sources, but let's not sweat such details. Just say God was directly adding volume to the oceans.
This resulted in sea level rising, say, 3000 feet (or 1000 metres if you prefer) over those 40 days.
Then over the next year (or pick you own time period) the water drained to the ocean basins, where God removed it back to wherever s/he stores that extra supply of water.
Now, what was the nature of the Earth, as opposed to pre-flood?
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-22-2006 9:35 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-23-2006 11:29 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 62 of 137 (365590)
11-23-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Adminnemooseus
11-23-2006 1:56 AM


Earth, Rebooted
Adminnemooseus:
How about these premises?:
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
That appears to be what we are left with. As Obvous Child notes, the YEC hypothesis can't be made to function even hypothetically. It is truly absurd. An exercise like this lets one experience firsthand just how absurd it is.
If the earth was 6,000 years old we would observe no plate tectonics and no multiple layers of strata. One of the earliest posts put it well: we would see three layers all over the world. We would see a pre-flood base layer, a flood sediment layer, and a layer comprised of the limited amount of accumulation since. That's all.
We would see no Taiwan or Japan, no Himalayas, no Appalachians, no Grand Canyon. Pre-flood or post-flood conjectures make no difference. Features like these couldn't happen. They would not be here.
Adminnemooseus:
C. 4500 years ago it rained hard all over the Earth, for 40 days and nights, because God made it such. Let's not worry about the water source, the temperature effects of condensation, etc. There were also be other water sources, but let's not sweat such details. Just say God was directly adding volume to the oceans.
This resulted in sea level rising, say, 3000 feet (or 1000 metres if you prefer) over those 40 days.
Add a zero. Sea level has to rise to nearly 30,000 feet.
The height of Sagarmatha, or Mount Everest, is 29,028 feet (8,848 meters) according to Wiki. Flood waters are said to have covered the mountains to a depth of around 22.5 feet, as RAZD has noted. Allowing for some erosion over the centuries and variability in the length of an ancient Babylonian cubit, we can say sea level at the height of the flood would need to be (conservative estimate) about 29,060 feet above the level today.
I'm okay for the moment with allowing all that water to come from nowhere. It would still be useful to get around eventually to the subject of where that much water could possibly be stowed away on a planet this size. (I suspect that will be a short discussion, too.)
Other than that it would be good if all other physical effects of the global flood scenario to be realistic. So temperature effects of condensation and the like are fair game. We still need a global deluge of liquid water, though, however we manage it. It's the aftermath of that event that we're discussing. If the physics of the matter force us to adjust variables--postulating a longer period of precipitation, for example, or lower flood depth--we should discuss it.
We just need the water. It isn't our job to ensure Noah's survival or anyone else's. The effects of such a flood on flora and fauna is part of the question.
The idea is to get a sense of what observers (likely not us) would see today. What features of the planet would lead them to conclude that its entire surface had been inundated under flood waters 4,500 years earlier?
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Precision.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Precision.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-23-2006 1:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 11-23-2006 1:04 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 11-24-2006 1:52 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 137 (365601)
11-23-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Archer Opteryx
11-23-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Earth, Rebooted
Archer Opterix writes:
What features of the planet would lead them to conclude that its entire surface had been inundated under flood waters 4,500 years earlier?
I'd like to see some sound cause/effect reasoning too. What we've seen so far is something like. "If the flood happened, my house would be yellow. Lo, and behold! My house is yellow. The flood must have happened."
I'd like to see the reasoning behind how the flood made my house yellow.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-23-2006 11:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 64 of 137 (365673)
11-24-2006 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by RAZD
11-22-2006 7:16 PM


Coal is from animals!!??? What!!??
off topic, but . . .
tell me they didn't actually say this. please, please tell me that no one is that stupid.
the phrase in question?
Coal (charred animal remains)
my god.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2006 7:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 10:12 PM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 65 of 137 (365674)
11-24-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Archer Opteryx
11-23-2006 11:29 AM


Re: Earth, Rebooted, w/o Noah
why does the global flood have to cover the mountains?
all you're asking is what earth would look like after a global catastrophic flood. not what it would lok like if noah's flood occurred. i think it's an important difference.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-23-2006 11:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 10:46 PM kuresu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 66 of 137 (365881)
11-24-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by kuresu
11-24-2006 1:46 AM


Re: Coal is from animals!!??? What!!??
tell me they didn't actually say this. please, please tell me that no one is that stupid.
Not necessarily stupid. The other options are ignorant, deluded, malicious and insane ...
Yes, that is what was posted, together with the comment on nitrogen and this "gem"
quote:
To understand how coal and oil are formed it is easiest to think of what happens when you cook a pie in the oven.
Don't bother thinking about all the volatile components in oil that gasoline and other lighter fuels are derived from that would blow the top off the pie.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by kuresu, posted 11-24-2006 1:46 AM kuresu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 137 (365884)
11-24-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by kuresu
11-24-2006 1:52 AM


Re: Earth, Rebooted, w/o Noah - the high water mark
why does the global flood have to cover the mountains?
Especially when other myths specifically mention mountains that stick above the flood water.
This is a lesser test: if there is evidence that contradicts this then a deeper flood could not have happened.
... all you're asking is what earth would look like after a global catastrophic flood.
Without magic water and magic tar and magic koalas (another board another topic).
We would see the kind of evidence we do see for floods in some places except it would all be in the same time frame.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by kuresu, posted 11-24-2006 1:52 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-27-2006 1:32 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 68 of 137 (366197)
11-27-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
11-24-2006 10:46 PM


Re: Earth, Rebooted, w/o Noah - the high water mark
On the subject of high seas:
RAZD:
Especially when other myths specifically mention mountains that stick above the flood water.
This is a lesser test: if there is evidence that contradicts this then a deeper flood could not have happened.
Understood. Okay, I'm easy.
So, for the sake of argument, what are we back to? 3,000 as Moose suggests?
__

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 10:46 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 69 of 137 (366203)
11-27-2006 4:52 AM


What I miss most are the Echindoderms
Living in a post-flood world the group I miss the most are the echindoderms. The starfish, sea urchins, sand dollars, sea cucumbers, and, most of all, the sea lillies (crinoids). Because this group all have a water vascular system and no means of ionic control they were all destroyed during the Great Flood. Because even a slight change in ionic balance (40 days of rain or fountains of the deep) causes them to explode internally. This is why this group, however diverse, never evolved freshwater forms in their 600 million year history. Oops, I mean 6000 year history.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 70 of 137 (366228)
11-27-2006 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by RAZD
11-22-2006 7:11 PM


Re: Magic Water
Greasy or oily surfaces tend to make water roll of to the sides don't they. Just like after you wax your car then spray it with a hose. You nice even film of water ends up with big puckers in it.
But not 22 feet deep. There is no evidence of this kind of behavior in any oil spill or seep.
If you change gravity, water density and a few other physical constants enough to allow water to flow up the sides of mountains ...
I'm not changing gravity or any other constants.
Well if you change the direction of gravity such that it is perpendicular to whatever surface is there then it will have a whole lot less strength due to there being less material through the cross section of a mountain than there is through the centre of the planet.
I would say that to keep the 22 foot deep water at all points on the planet would take a pretty major change in the way that gravity works so who's to say that 22 feet deep might be similar to what we see for a couple of milimeters now? It's no more far fetched than the rest of the scenario.
It even explains why so many animals fell into the things since they were the only spots on the planet that weren't submerged.
Again, going on experience with oil spills and seeps from the deep, oil floats up to the surface, even when congealed into tar like material. The surface would be slightly higher if anything: crude oil has a specific gravity that varies from 0.790 to 0.873 (anything below 1.0 floats, everything over 1.0 sinks - compared to fresh water, salt water today has a specific gravity of 1.025).
yeah sure it floats if you dump it on top of the water but this stuff was sticky... and already there before the water.
And remember that under circumstances where water can flow up the side of mountains, all bets are pretty much off. Predicting what would really happen under conditions that would allow that, might be a tad tricky so I think my hypothesis is just as realistic as any other that I've ever heard.
And of course we all know that mammals can swim while dinosaurs just sank ...
What? How do we know that dinosaurs couldn't swim just as well as mammals - many even had hollow bones, so they should be LESS dense than mammals. Some were known to be aquatic and some were shore dwellers (duck-billed dinos) that were adapted to semi-aquatic habitat with nostrils at the tops of their skulls.
Ahhh rubbish. All dinosaur bones that have ever been found are made of rock whereas mammals that are alive today have much less dense bones. It's obvious that a creature with rock bones must have been much more dense. Besides, the fact that there aren't any dinos in the tar pits just proves that they couldn't swim doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2006 7:11 PM RAZD has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 71 of 137 (366528)
11-28-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Joman
11-20-2006 1:02 PM


Joman writes:
7. A diverse complex of sedimentary structures
12. Large deposits of extreme purity.
These two bullets in your list are contradictory. How can a global process create "complex" structures but also create large deposits of extreme purity.
Large sedimentary deposits of extreme purity such as limestone, chalk, sandstone, mudstone, diatomaceous chert require isolation such as a large sedimentary basin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Joman, posted 11-20-2006 1:02 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Joman, posted 12-04-2006 1:15 PM iceage has not replied
 Message 73 by Joman, posted 12-04-2006 1:16 PM iceage has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 137 (367661)
12-04-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by iceage
11-28-2006 2:17 PM


General nature of global flood enviroment.
see next post.
Edited by Joman, : wrong quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iceage, posted 11-28-2006 2:17 PM iceage has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 137 (367662)
12-04-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by iceage
11-28-2006 2:17 PM


General nature of global flood enviroment.
Joman writes:
7. A diverse complex of sedimentary structures
12. Large deposits of extreme purity.
iceage writes:
These two bullets in your list are contradictory.
How can a global process create "complex" structures but also create large deposits of extreme purity.
The flood waters would produce a confusion of localized conditions for the deposition of sediments. On what basis can it be argued that a global flood would produce global uniformity of any kind? Does anyone propose that the weather and climate is the same everywhere on the earth? For the same reasons, uniformity wouldn't be true of a global flood water enviroment, either.
The high purity is only possible with a immediate precipitation of constituents out of watery solution brought about by saturation.
The precipitation would have had to have been catastrophic in nature to produce such large deposits. The high precipitation rate would be due to the huge infusion of minerals and such into the flood wqters during the flood stage.
Depositions of high purity can't occur over long periods of time since there exists no pure enviroment in which and of which it may occur. Water is able to sort out a complex mix of constituents into refined seperations of them into homogenous sediment layers.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iceage, posted 11-28-2006 2:17 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 12-04-2006 11:42 PM Joman has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 137 (367756)
12-04-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Joman
12-04-2006 1:16 PM


Re: General nature of global flood enviroment.
Joman writes:
The flood waters would produce a confusion of localized conditions for the deposition of sediments. On what basis can it be argued that a global flood would produce global uniformity of any kind?
Physics and chemistry. In this supposed global flood there is one environment, an ocean. There is no desert for thick interbedded evaporites, no ice sheets for glacial deposits, no dry deserts for wind-formed aeolian deposits. Also air and ice are not water, they deposit differently. How they deposit can be observed right now.
ABE - Yes ice is frozen water, what I mean is that gasses, liquids, and solids create different depositional environments.
Does anyone propose that the weather and climate is the same everywhere on the earth? For the same reasons, uniformity wouldn't be true of a global flood water enviroment, either.
How does a global flood create aeolian deposits? How does a flood preserve delicate interbedded structures with one layer full of burrows, repeated over and over again for 15,000 layers?
From Glen Morton at Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
quote:
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time. I made the comment that one feature of this deposit made it an excellent argument for an old earth and local flood.
Earle F. McBride (1969, p. 87-88) writes:
Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repetitious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick." p. 87. "Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds.
For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows. The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly.
I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited. The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.
That's just one piece of geology no YEC can explain or BS their way out of, there are many thousands more. Care to take a shot at these, especially point 74? Message 75
The high purity is only possible with a immediate precipitation of constituents out of watery solution brought about by saturation.
The precipitation would have had to have been catastrophic in nature to produce such large deposits. The high precipitation rate would be due to the huge infusion of minerals and such into the flood wqters during the flood stage.
Depositions of high purity can't occur over long periods of time since there exists no pure enviroment in which and of which it may occur. Water is able to sort out a complex mix of constituents into refined seperations of them into homogenous sediment layers.
Could you define or provide an example of a "high purity" deposit?
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Joman, posted 12-04-2006 1:16 PM Joman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Joman, posted 12-07-2006 11:18 AM anglagard has replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 137 (368190)
12-07-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by anglagard
12-04-2006 11:42 PM


Re: General nature of global flood enviroment.
In this supposed global flood there is one environment, an ocean.
It is an global size ocean of flood waters increasing and abating.
Within the flood waters there wouldn't have been any uniformity of conditions. What you see today is what you would expect from such a huge and horrendous event. Every bizarre condition imaginable occurred and evidence of this is what is found everywhere upon the surface of the earth.
There is no desert for thick interbedded evaporites,
There are no appropriate mechanisms able to deposit such beds of evaporites in deserts. But the flood was able to deposit them. That the land in question is today a desert is due to climate patterns arising after the flood.
no ice sheets for glacial deposits,
The winter of the flood would've been severe and of such proportions so as to develope the ice sheets that are thought to represent ages of formation and retreat.
no dry deserts for wind-formed aeolian deposits.
Also air and ice are not water, they deposit differently. How they deposit can be observed right now.
So, provide significant global examples.
How does a global flood create aeolian deposits?
There would be enormous supplies of sand after a global flood. Many features of dunes in water and in air are identical.
How does a flood preserve delicate interbedded structures with one layer full of burrows, repeated over and over again for 15,000 layers?
You must prove that they are burrows. But, the interbedded part is possible in a flood that involves an enormous variety of depositional circumstances.
The Haymond beds consist of 15,000 alternating layers of sand and shale. The sands have several characteristic sedimentary features which are found on turbidite deposits. Turbidites are deep water deposits in which each sand layer is deposited in a brief period of time, by a submarine "landslide" (I am trying to avoid jargon here) and the shale covering it is deposited over a long period of time.
That the shale took a long time to deposit is an assumption.
And, it's an unresonable scenario isn't it? For 15,ooo ages of time a cycle of 7,5oo identical ages is repeated? No, it's more reasonable to believe that the cyclic structure of the layers is due to a local depositional enviroment within a massive global flood that sorted out the sand and the clay in the pattern as found. Otherwise you'd expect me to think that for a long age only sand under deep water was deposited, followed by a long age of only a particular clay and that this pattern was cyclic. Isn't it ridiculous? A age of deep water followed by an age of shallow for 7500 identical ages? It's flood waters that explains the beds of homogenous depositional materials.
For the non-geologist who is reading this this means that the burrows are in the shales (which take a long time to be deposited) so the animals would have lots of time to dig their burrows.
That they are burrows is an assumption.
The sandstones are the catastrophic deposit which covers and fills in the burrows with sand. The fact that there are no burrows in the sand proves that the sand was deposited rapidly.
7,500 catastrophic and rapid depositions? Each followed by, 7500 peaceful depositions of clay? I don't think this is a scientifically rational explaination.
I pointed out that if the all the sedimentary record had to be deposited in a year long flood of Noah, then given that the entire geologic column in this area is 5000 meters thick, and that the Haymond beds are 1300 m thick, 1300/5000*365 days = 95 days for the Haymond beds to be deposited. Since there are 15,000 of these layers, then 15,000/95 days = 157 layers per day need to be deposited.
Probably, much faster than that.
The problem is that the animals which made the burrows mentioned above, need some time to re-colonize and re-burrow the shale. Is it really reasonable to believe that 157 times per day or 6.5 times per hour, for all the burrowers to be buried, killed, and a new group colonize above them for the process to be repeated? Even allowing for a daily cycle, would require 41 years for this deposit to be laid down.
I don't believe they are burrows.
That's just one piece of geology no YEC can explain or BS their way out of, there are many thousands more.
It's quite weak in my opinion. Especially so due to the ridiculousness of the nonflood scenario that was presented. A scenario that incorprates an unknown cyclic mechanism operating like clockwork for 7,500 cyclic ages over an enormous span of time.
Could you define or provide an example of a "high purity" deposit?
I would consider anything around 99% pure to be high purity.
summary:
My point is that what we find globally (not locally) upon the surface of the earth today corresponds to the consequences of a global flood. No local scenario's, such as The Haymond beds, the Grand Canyon, corresponds to the global nature of the flood. They only correspond to local scenario's occurring within the global flood. To prove that a "global" flood occurred requires looking at global effects. the complexity of "local" scenario's producing varied and often bizarre geologic formations which don't conform to hard fast rules is the norm for a global flood enviroment in the same way that local conditions of climate don't correspond to the global climate scenario. What would you expect to see after the waters of a horrendous global flood had occurred? You'd see a complex array of geologic anomalies in profusion mixed in with much larger geologic formations mixed in with some even larger geologic formations.
What most on this site are proposing to do is apply local anomalies of sedimentation to global issues to which they can't rationally apply.
Joman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 12-04-2006 11:42 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 12-07-2006 11:21 AM Joman has replied
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 12-07-2006 4:12 PM Joman has not replied
 Message 80 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2006 4:40 PM Joman has not replied
 Message 83 by anglagard, posted 12-08-2006 7:46 PM Joman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024