|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,266 Year: 6,523/9,624 Month: 101/270 Week: 14/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world. For clarity, you're talking about looking at pictures on the internet, right? You're not talking about you, yourself, actually digging up rocks in the real world, correct?
Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else. Well, it is a science thread. Where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the old model? Looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs? No, I'm saying that looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence. It's just a superficial reaction from an a priori position. There is no analysis or understanding, it is clearly and plainly wishful thinking.
Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed. A child can spend 5 minutes looking at the river in the bottom and interpolate the vast amount of time it would take for it to carve that canyon. If you didn't already believe that there had to have been a flood there, you'd prolly see it too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Proving a negative? How would I ever know that I need to go buy more beer if I cannot prove that there is no beer in the fridge?
The evidence for the Flood is gargantuan, worldwide, starting with the sedimentary strata that were laid down one on top of another across huge spans of geography, obviously deposited by water, showing very tight contacts between them, razor sharp in many cases. How could one stratum get smooshed down on top of another stratum without there being a tight contact line between them? They can't float!
Then there was the amount of time erosion would have had since then to carve various figures out of the deposited sedimentary rock. 4500 years just about exactly the right amount of time to carve the hoodoos and the monuments and the Grand Staircase and so on. Yeah right. I don't believe you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CatsEye's refusal to address the evidence because I've never taken a pickaxe to a rock; Not true, that was for clarity. Here's me addressing what you are calling evidence:
quote: quote: I still don't know the answers to those questions. If you'll answer them, we can move on and I'll keep addressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The receding water would have scoured off those huge plateaus. How do you know? What properties of the plateaus indicate them being scoured off by receding Flood waters?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's commonly believed here but the actual observed facts of the strata don't fit that long-term scenario but are best explained by rapid deposition. The strata are laid one on top of another quite straight and flat, there is nothing about them to suggest there was ever anything like a normal earth surface to any of them, they are flat as a pancake stretching over huge distances and stacked to huge depths. The densities of the strata, and the arrangements of their molecules, indicate that they have been compacted and we're not laid down in the form that they are in today. How does your model account for that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Aren't you just preaching?
GTFO with that crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cats Eye, add to the discussion without all your crap comments. If you dont know history thats your problem. If you have numerous billion years of missing links and eras. Again thats your problem. Get your crap together, and explain your history, in solid form. And please no one liners, it shows your lack of depth .... Start your luck and chance thesis off, with maybe your summation....that all human history is by luck and chance and there has never been and never will be any rhyme or reason or design to history. Suggest there is NO DIRECTION OF TIME, and its all just hit and miss MISTAKES of man never learning anything. Sum up your thesis, rather than making crappy comments against others and me. Sure, my thesis is simple: Science works.
Now back to the true dating of the Great Flood, the catacylsms that Darwin so well noted and documented. We know without a doubt, as a scientific fact, that the entire planet has never been flooded since humans have existed. Whatever calculations you come up with that conflicts with that fact must be incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Meanders have nothing in common with the widest parts of the canyon. Huh!? There's isn't any part of the canyon that doesn't meander:
(click to enlarge) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Enlarge thumbnail view to full screen. The photo can be zoomed in even more by clicking on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Notice any similarities today, as man still hasn't learned his lesson, even though reuniting under a new one world language through translations on line. Why, because man in his arrogance when united, is dangerous and so way back then, the Lord divided their languages so that they could no longer communicate to each other, and therefore had to leave off building their proud work of the flesh. So the Lord brought them back down to Earth, and divided them into linguistic groups and separated them into the four corners of the earth .... and then it seems at the very same time era divided the Earth into new continents, so as to further keep them apart. The Lord commanded the animals and people after the Flood, to breed abundantly and they obviously did as well asredistributing themselves over the face of the remaining dry land. But after this redistribution, expansion and biological explosion, then came the Tower of babel and the language separation. So maybe at the same time, there was a shifting of the geological plates, some raising and lowering as the watersreceeded downwards. And so surely after these great land mass had drained and dried out, there could have been a dividing of the Earth. It can't be absolutely be proven, but the very real possibility remains. We know as a scientific fact that the entire planet has not been flooded since humans have existed. Any "possibility" that you come up with that contradicts that must be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They don't have to be "uniform," just originally laid down flat, as Morris also said. The reason they look flat today is because of the geological process of compaction. The environments that they represent (not are), could have been very different when they were on the surface and they were not necessarily flat when they were being laid down. Layers get a lot flatter over time as they build up, and it takes time.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet, we see Faith say the same thing over and over again, that these sedimentary units are 'flat' with parallel top and bottom, and are continentally extensive. They also keep harping on this whole "razor sharp" contact lines between the layers, as if it was possible for it to be some other way, or something. Doesn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I know this is a quote from edge but I'll answer it here. I have never said anything about them being parallel top and bottom to some degree of perfection, but you can look at them and see a GENERAL parallel form and that's all I've ever meant. All I've ever said is that they are originally laid down horizontally or "flat" across the flat continent, which is what water would do. But we can't say that they were originally laid down flat just because they look flat today. They've gone through compaction, and that makes them flatter. They very well may not have been flat when they were laid down.
So what? The point is that they were originally laid down flat, That point is wrong and not supported by the evidence.
The point is that mainstream Geology says that the layers represent time periods, (Cambrian, Devonian, Permian, Jurassic, etc) or groups of layers do, and they will point to minuscule amounts of erosion between some layers to prove it, There is more that proves it than just the amounts of erosion between them...
Yet they claim those time periods persisted over millions of years. No, their actual appearance is of sediments laid down in water one on top of another But you don't know what you're looking at, and you're not a geologist. Sorry, but your observation is just wrong.
and sometimes they have those extremely razor tight contacts. That is not what you'd get from a surface that had been on the the surface of the Earth for lmillions of years, or even ten or one, or a month. Sure, but after all of the layers have been compacted together, you would expect exactly that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What on earth is your obsession with "compaction?" Of course they were compacted. So what? It means they were not necessarily originally laid down horizontally and flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The fact is they were. You should stay out of discussions you haven't been following. You should kiss my ass!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024