Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 226 of 293 (470918)
06-13-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by ICANT
06-13-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Timeline of the flood
How can a flash flood be compared to a universal flood?
A flash flood is caused by water descending from a higher location to a lower location in volume that rivers and streams can not handle.
A flood that water is rising from every direction at one time would not have the effect of a flash flood.
As I understand the Bibical flood most of the water would have come from the fountains of the deep that were opened up. These are fresh water springs that are in the oceans. The waters would have come up from the seas and not necessarly wash down from the mountains (if any mountains existed at the time of the flood).
God Bless,
Even in simple tidal movements, the water moves objects and sediments around. Sufficient water to Flood even a "flat" Earth would have to be many times more significant than any simple tidal movement.
In any flood scenario, large or small, sediments are shifted around by the movement of the water, and the higher-density material is sifted to the bottom while lighter material settles on top.
This means that we should see a global layer of sediments (it doesn't have to be homogenous - dirt from China would not necessarily flow all the way to England - but there should be a global layer of sediment that all dates to the same period), and that this layer should be sorted by density. Metal and stone tools, pottery, and stones should be in the bottom of the layer. Fossilized remains should not be sorted by age, but rather by density and ability to swim. There should be massive amounts of fish fossils globally, far more than in other layers as fish die off due to the salinity changes inherant in a flood scenario. The entirety of the fossil record from this period should globally be consistent with a flood.
This is simply not the case. The most obvious evidence is stone and metal tools - they are always found in layers far above fossils of creatures that should have been killed in the Flood (to suggest that all of these fossils had died before the flood is silly, as this would involve ridiculous overpopulation).
If we go to the midwestern US where many cities are being flooded right now, where will we find a hammer (for the purpose of argument, assume the hammer was left on the ground rather than in someone's garage - we don't tend to find ancient garages )? Will it be at the bottom of the sediment when the water recedes, beneath most animal remains? Or will it be almost on top, above significantly less-dense material?
IF (a global Flood happened) THEN (there should be a global sediment layer) AND (all material in the sediment layer should be sorted by density consistent with observed flooding)
Both of those conditions are false, and so we have evidence in direct contradiction of the Flood myth. Equivocation about comparisons to a flash flood are irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:05 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 227 of 293 (470923)
06-13-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rahvin
06-13-2008 12:21 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Rahvin writes:
Both of those conditions are false, and so we have evidence in direct contradiction of the Flood myth. Equivocation about comparisons to a flash flood are irrelevant.
Then why mention the flash flooding in the mid-west then.
My main question has always been where did all this sediment come from you always keep mentioning. If there was very little eroding because the water came from everywhere there would be no big thick layer of sediment.
The fish would have had a field day with all the dead carcuses.
I do not see the fish kill as you do because the flood was caused by fresh water. There are places today that there is fresh water and salt water in the oceans.
We also have fresh water fish surviving in salt water and salt water fish surviving in fresh water.
I have caught fresh water largemouth bass a mile offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
I have also caught salt water fish 4 miles upriver from the Gulf.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rahvin, posted 06-13-2008 12:21 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rahvin, posted 06-13-2008 2:18 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 253 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 2:55 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 228 of 293 (470941)
06-13-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by ICANT
06-13-2008 1:05 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Both of those conditions are false, and so we have evidence in direct contradiction of the Flood myth. Equivocation about comparisons to a flash flood are irrelevant.
Then why mention the flash flooding in the mid-west then.
The flooding in the midwest is in no way a "flash flood." It consists primarily of rivers overflowing their banks - this is completely different from a true flash flood. Quite to the contrary, the midwestern flooding involves for the most part simple rapidly rising water levels in rivers, not the sudden movement of water from higher ground to lower due to oversaturated ground in higher elevations that defines flash flooding.
Again, flash flood vs "normal flood" comparisons are irrelevant. Regardless of the scenario you use to flood the Earth (rising water levels due to "fountains of the deep," extreme rainfall, etc), all flooding results in sediments being picked up and moved.
My main question has always been where did all this sediment come from you always keep mentioning. If there was very little eroding because the water came from everywhere there would be no big thick layer of sediment.
This contradicts every single flood ever observed. All floods shift sediment - ever notice on the news how the water is always muddy? That would be sediment being moved along by the water. Exactly how many floods have you ever seen photos of with perfectly clear water, ICANT?
Erosion is irrelevant. If you wash water over simple dry ground, particulate matter is picked up by the moving water and moved. On loose ground like sand or even soil, significant amounts of sediment are picked up. In natural disasters like floods, lots of sediment gets moved around. Have you ever seen the interior of a home in a low-lying region after a flood? It's filled with dirt carried by the water. That's the sediment left behind.
The fish would have had a field day with all the dead carcuses.
Irrelevant - the fish would have died due to rapidly changing salinity. Saltwater fish and freshwater fish cannot coexist, with a few exceptions. Food is not the issue - it's the salinity difference. If you take a bass from Lake Michigan and put it in the Pacific, it will die, and it has nothing to do with food.
Not to mention, not all fish are carnivorous. Carcasses would have nothing to do with anything.
I do not see the fish kill as you do because the flood was caused by fresh water. There are places today that there is fresh water and salt water in the oceans.
You assert that the flood was caused by fresh water with no evidence whatsoever, I'll note.
Go ahead and dump a few gallons of freshwater into a fish tank filled with seawater and see what happens to the fish. I'll give you a hint: most species will be dead, very quickly.
We also have fresh water fish surviving in salt water and salt water fish surviving in fresh water.
I have caught fresh water largemouth bass a mile offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
I have also caught salt water fish 4 miles upriver from the Gulf.
As I said, there are exceptions. River fish (like salmon) for example can be tolerant of both environments. This, however, is atypical. Most species cannot tolerate significant changes in salinity. Again, we would expect to see an atypically large number of fish fossils in the sediment left by a global flood due to a rapidly changing environment that most species would be incapable of surviving.
I also note that you are compeltely ignoring the main point - that of tools always being found above the fossilized remains of creatures like dinosaurs and others that science accepts as predating humanity, but the Bible requires to have been killed in the flood. Why are metal tools found above biological remains that are far less dense, and should have been able to swim? Why is there no global layer of sediment consistent with a global flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 4:13 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 229 of 293 (470959)
06-13-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rahvin
06-13-2008 2:18 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Rahvin writes:
I also note that you are compeltely ignoring the main point - that of tools always being found above the fossilized remains of creatures like dinosaurs and others that science accepts as predating humanity, but the Bible requires to have been killed in the flood. Why are metal tools found above biological remains that are far less dense, and should have been able to swim? Why is there no global layer of sediment consistent with a global flood?
When are you going to stop putting me in the YEC group?
I got no problems with all kind of things on top of dinosaurs.
I don't have dinosaurs destroyed by the flood.
I don't see the need of a layer of sediment showing a global flood.
I know the power of water. I lived in Niagara Falls NY for 2 years and listened to the water going over the falls every night as I went to sleep. I was there when prospect point went sailing into the gorge.
Rahvin writes:
The flooding in the midwest is in no way a "flash flood." It consists primarily of rivers overflowing their banks - this is completely different from a true flash flood. Quite to the contrary, the midwestern flooding involves for the most part simple rapidly rising water levels in rivers, not the sudden movement of water from higher ground to lower due to oversaturated ground in higher elevations that defines flash flooding.
Lets see the rain is coming down faster than the rivers can handle the run off. Since there is room at lower levels then the water moves to the lower level. If the lower levels is low enough the water moving will move anything in its way. I even saw a house take off down river on TV.
But if the water was rising at the lower levels leaving no place for the water to run to then there would be no sweeping current to move anything. There would be no sediment layer to amount to anything. What there was would be on top of the surface and would disappear very quickly.
Rahvin writes:
This contradicts every single flood ever observed. All floods shift sediment - ever notice on the news how the water is always muddy? That would be sediment being moved along by the water. Exactly how many floods have you ever seen photos of with perfectly clear water, ICANT?
Who observed the Biblical flood?
No one has ever observed a flood where the oceans were rising faster than the water being rained down on the land. Remember it was also raining on the oceans just as it was on the land. By the time the low area's had all filled (as it had never rained before) the oceans were already meeting them.
So please explain how there would be enough erosion to cause a sediment layer to be all over the earth. I could see enough erosion in the higher elevation to cause a small layer but that could not even compare to the layers that is shown by local flooding.
I know I have read a lot of YEC stuff that makes a huge thick layer producing our coal and oil. I thought you guys had proved all that garbage did not happen.
I think our coal and oil was there billions of years ago.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rahvin, posted 06-13-2008 2:18 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rahvin, posted 06-13-2008 5:50 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 255 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:07 AM ICANT has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 230 of 293 (470966)
06-13-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by LucyTheApe
06-11-2008 1:00 PM


Re: end of story
quote:
Just give me some convincing evidence that disqualifies a global flood.
You have it backwards - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - provided by the person making the extraordinary claim. The burden of "convincing evidence" of a global flood is on you - not on those saying otherwise. It is not up to us to disprove that a global flood happened - it is up to you to prove that it did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by LucyTheApe, posted 06-11-2008 1:00 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 231 of 293 (470978)
06-13-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
06-13-2008 4:13 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
quote:
Rahvin writes:
I also note that you are compeltely ignoring the main point - that of tools always being found above the fossilized remains of creatures like dinosaurs and others that science accepts as predating humanity, but the Bible requires to have been killed in the flood. Why are metal tools found above biological remains that are far less dense, and should have been able to swim? Why is there no global layer of sediment consistent with a global flood?
When are you going to stop putting me in the YEC group?
I got no problems with all kind of things on top of dinosaurs.
I don't have dinosaurs destroyed by the flood.
Dinosaurs aren't the only things that would be killed by a flood, ICANT. This doesn't only apply to YEC's, though it obviously strikes them harder.
We always find metal tools above vaious species. IF there was a flood, there would of necessity have been an unusually large number of creatures buried in sediment as the water receded, and those creatures along with everything else would have been sorted by density. We see no such thing. Instead, we see tools lying on top of much less dense objects. We see dense objects like stones or magma on top of species with no examples of that species above it.
I realize that some of this is targeted towards YEC's, ICANT, but as you undoubtedly realize, you Biblical literalists can't even agree on how to literally interpret the Bible, so I need to argue against all of thsoe positions simultaneously.
Even given an old Earth with dinosaurs and such already extinct, a global flood would need to result in a global layer of sediment. This layer would contain the remains of those killed by the flood, and being a sudden catastrophic event resulting in near-sterilization of the Earth over the course of less than a year's time, the layer should contain exponentially more fossils than layers generated in normal time periods. Similarly, there should be a sudden dropoff in fossils immediately thereafter, as there were almost no additional living creatures to fossilize as the world repopulated.
We do not see this. The lack of such a layer and a completely different pattern of fossilization is direct, contradictory evidence that proves the flood myth to be nothing more than that - a myth.
I don't see the need of a layer of sediment showing a global flood.
Then you need to look at the afteraffects of floods.
An example of particulate matter left after a flood (ie - sediment).
A really good one including dead cattle partially buried by sediment.
FACT - flooding of all types stirs up sediment and redeposits it. You can try to deny this all you want, but you lack evidence to back the conviction of your delusional beliefs.
I know the power of water. I lived in Niagara Falls NY for 2 years and listened to the water going over the falls every night as I went to sleep. I was there when prospect point went sailing into the gorge.
And what relavence, precisely, does the sound of Niagara Falls have to do with this discussion? Niagara Falls is a waterfall, as you know - it's eroding, of course (carrying away sediment), but it's not exactly an example of a flood, now is it? It doesn't even support your position or mine - it's irrelevant.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
The flooding in the midwest is in no way a "flash flood." It consists primarily of rivers overflowing their banks - this is completely different from a true flash flood. Quite to the contrary, the midwestern flooding involves for the most part simple rapidly rising water levels in rivers, not the sudden movement of water from higher ground to lower due to oversaturated ground in higher elevations that defines flash flooding.
Lets see the rain is coming down faster than the rivers can handle the run off. Since there is room at lower levels then the water moves to the lower level. If the lower levels is low enough the water moving will move anything in its way. I even saw a house take off down river on TV.
But if the water was rising at the lower levels leaving no place for the water to run to then there would be no sweeping current to move anything. There would be no sediment layer to amount to anything. What there was would be on top of the surface and would disappear very quickly.
Have you never seen the daily tides? That's a relatively gentle rising of the seal level, and yet it comes as crashing waves and does, in fact, move sediment. Saying "there would be no sweeping current" is blatantly false. Sufficient water to flood the Earth would make tidal movements look like ripples in a pond, ICANT. Your position is based solely on your own mind defending your faith-based beleifs. You have no evidence to back your claims, while the evidence stacks against your position.
Show me an example of a flood (not resulting from a water main breach, anyway) that does not leave a layer of sediment when the water recedes. Until you do so, you're making unsupported assertions - and we know what that means.
quote:
Rahvin writes:
This contradicts every single flood ever observed. All floods shift sediment - ever notice on the news how the water is always muddy? That would be sediment being moved along by the water. Exactly how many floods have you ever seen photos of with perfectly clear water, ICANT?
Who observed the Biblical flood?
No one has ever observed a flood where the oceans were rising faster than the water being rained down on the land. Remember it was also raining on the oceans just as it was on the land. By the time the low area's had all filled (as it had never rained before) the oceans were already meeting them.
This is a picture of a tidal wave. Not to be confused with a tsunami (as is so common), this is just one of the large waves that comes in as the tide rises. Note that it's pretty large.
Here's a picture of land revealed by low tide. See the ripples? That's from the water moving sediment around.
Oh, and the tides would be an example of "oceans rising faster than the water being rained down on the land." Sea level rises significantly more than rainfall at high tide.
I'm also calling "bullshit" on your claim that "it had never rained before." We see sufficient evidence in the geological record to track ancient rainfall levels - unless your flood happened long before human (or any) habitation, it obviously was not the first time rain had fallen.
So please explain how there would be enough erosion to cause a sediment layer to be all over the earth. I could see enough erosion in the higher elevation to cause a small layer but that could not even compare to the layers that is shown by local flooding.
A year-long flood? Really? When even short-term local flooding results in significant amounts of sediment being deposited? You're breaking the boundaries of rationality, ICANT. You're speaking from the wrong orifice, as you haven't produces a single bit of evidence to support your assertion that a global (or even local! flood can occur and not leave sediment behind.
I know I have read a lot of YEC stuff that makes a huge thick layer producing our coal and oil. I thought you guys had proved all that garbage did not happen.
We did. It's also not relavent to this discussion, and I have no idea how you think it is.
I think our coal and oil was there billions of years ago.
That's good, but you also believe in a magic flood of pure water that doesn't carry any sediment, leaves no fossil evidence of its passing despite killing billions of living things in a very short timespan, and somehow restructures the face of teh Earth (referring to your "if there were even mountains" comment earlier) in ways completely inconsistent with observed floods.
Coal and oil have nothing to do with this discussion - since we both agree that coal and oil were not formed in the flood, they are wholly irrelevant.
So again - your comments regarding flooding and sedimentary deposits are compeltely wrong, not even corrent in the slightest bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 4:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 8:08 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 232 of 293 (470990)
06-13-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rahvin
06-13-2008 5:50 PM


Re: Timeline of the flood
Rahvin writes:
That's good, but you also believe in a magic flood of pure water that doesn't carry any sediment, leaves no fossil evidence of its passing despite killing billions of living things in a very short timespan, and somehow restructures the face of teh Earth (referring to your "if there were even mountains" comment earlier) in ways completely inconsistent with observed floods.
Why would I have a problem with that type of flood. I believe the universe was created in one day. We won't get into my views on the mountians or the elevations of the land of the topology of the earth at the time of the flood.
Back to rising water.
In the Bay of Fundy the water rises and and falls 50 feet every 12 hrs and 25 minutes. That causes a lot of erosion.
But what if that water that took 6 hours and 12 minutes was followed by another 50' in the next 6 hrs 12 minutes and continued you would gain 200' of water per 24 hrs. In 40 days that would be 8000' of water providing the water was rising everywhere at the same rate.
That would mean Atlanta Ga. the city with the highest elevation east of Denver would be under water in 6 days.
The water would be rising like the water in your bath tub if the fill was from the bottom of the tub.
Don't ask me where all that water could come from. We went over that and I have no problem with a supply but you do.
I am just trying to point out that the water could rise without washing the top of the earth away. With the amount of time for the water to subside there would be no rush of the water to wash more away going down.
God Bless,
One day maybe we can discuss my views concerning the flood.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rahvin, posted 06-13-2008 5:50 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 233 of 293 (471008)
06-13-2008 11:58 PM


The tepate sandstone is where i beleive the evidence of the global flood is.It can be tracked all across the united states and some geologist have suggested that similar formations can be tracked all the way across the atlantic into europe.Note they are precambrian,So every geologic formation above would represent the recovery and recolonization of life after the flood.The bible says the moutains rose out of the seas and the valleys sank.Some geologist have recently suggested that the rocky mountains rise instead of forming by plate tectonics like everst and other mt. ranges.In that scenario you could easily picture shallow sea organisms(cambrian)being covered by massive landslides and fossilizing even causing the extinction of many species.

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by anglagard, posted 06-14-2008 12:27 AM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 235 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 12:33 AM Jason777 has not replied

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


Message 234 of 293 (471012)
06-14-2008 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jason777
06-13-2008 11:58 PM


Too Much
Jason777 writes:
The tepate sandstone is where i beleive the evidence of the global flood is.It can be tracked all across the united states and some geologist have suggested that similar formations can be tracked all the way across the atlantic into europe.Note they are precambrian,So every geologic formation above would represent the recovery and recolonization of life after the flood.The bible says the moutains rose out of the seas and the valleys sank.Some geologist have recently suggested that the rocky mountains rise instead of forming by plate tectonics like everst and other mt. ranges.In that scenario you could easily picture shallow sea organisms(cambrian)being covered by massive landslides and fossilizing even causing the extinction of many species.
Hilarious, where to begin?
1. There is no such thing as the Tepate sandstone. Did you mean the Tapeats Sandstone?
2. There is no such thing as a sandstone formation that crosses the mid-Atlantic ridge. Nor are there any Precambrian or even Cambrian sandstones under any ocean basins. The Tapeats sandstone does not exist in the Williston basin in North Dakota nor does it overlie Precambrian formations in the Canadian Shield and/or Northern Minnnesota). In fact, I am pretty sure the Tapeats formation does not exist much beyond the southwestern US.
3. The purported non-existent sandstone formation is difficult to date in time, for the simple reason it does not exist. At 545 mya The Tapeats Sandstone is from the Cambrian, not the Precambrian.
I could go on but why? Please use Firefox, Google, or a dictionary for proper spelling, otherwise one has difficulty divining what you are talking about. Also, when referring to 'some geologist' please provide citations. I have known hundreds of geologists but have yet to meet any undereducated enough to state what you have ascribed to them except as a joke.
Edited by anglagard, : a bit more clarity
Edited by anglagard, : and/or

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jason777, posted 06-13-2008 11:58 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 235 of 293 (471014)
06-14-2008 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Jason777
06-13-2008 11:58 PM


The tepate sandstone is where i beleive the evidence of the global flood is.It can be tracked all across the united states and some geologist have suggested that similar formations can be tracked all the way across the atlantic into europe.Note they are precambrian,So every geologic formation above would represent the recovery and recolonization of life after the flood.
So you are claiming that all scientific methods of dating are wrong -- by about 500+ million years?
And you are also claiming that biblical scholars who place the global flood about 4,350 years ago are wrong -- by that same 500+ million years.
Do you have some evidence for these statements other than religious belief?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Jason777, posted 06-13-2008 11:58 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 236 of 293 (471016)
06-14-2008 12:44 AM


Define all scientific dating methods?Im pretty certain helium diffusion,c-14 in diamonds,fossils,and coal seem to indicate a young earth.Even some genetic evidence seems to point to human origins ~6,500 years ago.Maybe your picking the dating methods that support your religion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2008 12:59 AM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 257 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2008 3:20 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 237 of 293 (471018)
06-14-2008 12:56 AM


sorry about the spelling.I saw a map of the tepate sandstone and it did cover most of the U.S. but perhaps not every square inch of it.I saw a geology show recently on the sci-channel and they used a cork in a glass of water to show how the rocky mountains float and are pushed up by magma underneath them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by anglagard, posted 06-14-2008 1:16 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 238 of 293 (471019)
06-14-2008 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Jason777
06-14-2008 12:44 AM


Define all scientific dating methods?Im pretty certain helium diffusion,c-14 in diamonds,fossils,and coal seem to indicate a young earth.Even some genetic evidence seems to point to human origins ~6,500 years ago.Maybe your picking the dating methods that support your religion.
If you are advocating a young earth in addition to a global flood you have a lot more problems to explain away besides the fact that the consensus of all scientific dating methods disagree with you.
But the thread topic is Does the evidence support the Flood?
Perhaps you could provide evidence supporting your statements on the flood occurring during the Cambrian, and then explain how 500+ million years can be compressed into only 4,350 years. Please outline the scientific evidence supporting these claims.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 12:44 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 239 of 293 (471020)
06-14-2008 1:05 AM


Oh no,i did it again didnt I? (Tapeats sandstone).

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


Message 240 of 293 (471023)
06-14-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Jason777
06-14-2008 12:56 AM


The Concept of Density and Citing Sources
Jason777 writes:
I saw a geology show recently on the sci-channel and they used a cork in a glass of water to show how the rocky mountains float and are pushed up by magma underneath them.
The Rocky Mountains do not 'float' on water because they are largely made of granite and metamorphic rock which has a density of around 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter, water has a density of 1 (it is used as the standard at 4 degrees centigrade) and cork has a density of less than 1, which is why it floats.
Please see the following for further discussion of this scientific concept: Density - Wikipedia
Define all scientific dating methods?Im pretty certain helium diffusion,c-14 in diamonds,fossils,and coal seem to indicate a young earth.Even some genetic evidence seems to point to human origins ~6,500 years ago.Maybe your picking the dating methods that support your religion.
Once again, this is a science thread, please use citations to relevant sources unless you have done the research yourself, in which case please post your findings along with your experimental methodology.
For example, I suspect the source of at least some of the above claims is Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry but I could be mistaken. Perhaps it is someone who knew someone who knew someone else who read it, or it may be an entirely different source altogether. At any rate, please use citations.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Jason777, posted 06-14-2008 12:56 AM Jason777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024