The TRVE history of the Flood...

Yes, well I stated that conclusion I've come to in a brief answer to some other point that came up. I've argued it elsewhere.Instead of changing the subject how about reconsidering the post I just made? The water would have to have risen high enough to swamp South Africa too.

The Phaneorozoic is not a layer. And also not a period. Your question doesn't make any sense.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I said over the PERIOD of the Phanerozoic, Pressie. During that TIME FRAME were there sea transgressions in South Africa or other parts of the world to match those in North America?Instead of evading the question would you please consider that periodic transgressions over higher and higher strata on one continent would have to flood other continents as well?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again, Faith, your question doesn't make any sense. The Phanerozoic is not a period. And also not a layer.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Did you read the Wikipedia article Faith? ("Eustasy" is global sea level changes)Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Sigh.
Try one more time:DURING THE 542 million years that are said to span the Phanerozoic Era from the Cambrian to the Cenozoic, was there or was there not a series of sea transgressions over South Africa or any other continent?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not the SOLE responsible mechanism?But surely it is indisputable that if the sea transgresses one continent it must transgress all others, yes?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It obviously did not affect other continents to anything like the same extent. That is WHY it is concluded that sea level rise is not the only cause. That is what the quote says.

I'll try one more time. The Phanerozoic is not a period and also not a layer.

Now wait a minute. You just found it very funny that I said the high mountains were pushed up by tectonic activity after the Flood. Except for the time difference I'm saying the same thing you are saying. In my system of thought the strata were all laid down in the Flood waters, and of course that would have deposited a lot of marine life in those strata, and after the Flood the mountains were raised, containing a lot of marine life, and the continents split apart under tectonic pressure and have drifted since then to their present locations. The continents are now drifting at a very very slow rate but they are still drifting; and likewise the Himalayas are still being pushed up by the same tectonic force also at a much slower rate than they started out.You have a much longer period of time in mind, but the mechanics of how the mountains formed are the same for both of us. CRR didn't say anything to deserve that, Pressie. YOU should learn some manners.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They are called SEA TRANSGRESSIONS, Paul. That is what...they...are...called.So somebody noticed that golly gee we don't see this elsewhere so there MUST be some other reason than rising sea etc.But my Message 477 nevertheless brings up difficult issues for any explanation other than Noah's Flood because the last transgression had to rise a couple of miles to cover the uppermost strata, and there is no way that could possibly have happened without transgressing all the other continents.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I disagree. CRR accused hundreds of thousands of scientists from all over the world of telling untruths. CRR should be ashamed. You should be ashamed for defending those obvious untruths.I think that it represents good manners pointing out untruths.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They are called SEA TRANSGRESSIONS, Paul. That is what...they...are...called.

---

Which does not change the facts that I pointed out.

quote:

---

So somebody noticed that golly gee we don't see this elsewhere so there MUST be some other reason than rising sea etc.

---

If it is only found on one continent, that is the sensible conclusion. And doesn't the fact that the other continents weren't affected as much blow a hole in your argument anyway ?

quote:

---

But my post nevertheless brings up difficult issues for any explanation other than Noah's Flood because the water had to rise a couple of miles to cover the uppermost strata, and there is no way that could possibly have happened without transgressing all the other continents.

---

Except that the evidence disagrees. If anyone should be accused of jumping to conclusions surely it should be those who ignore the evidence. It seems more likely to me that there was subsidence of the North American continent, so that the sea did not have to rise so far.

The other continents had to be affected, Paul. If they don't have those identifiable transgressions, that says a lot about some scientific errors in North America, but as far as the general point goes there is no way all the continents would have escaped being covered in water.ABE: And that's not evidence, Paul, the fact that other continents don't show the same transgressions shows an error somewhere, it's not evidence of anything but error.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again the evidence says otherwise. I have suggested an alternative that fits better with the evidence.Your opinion about what "must" have happened is just your opinion.

quote:

---

ABE: And that's not evidence, Paul, the fact that other continents don't show the same transgressions shows an error somewhere, it's not evidence of anything but error

---

And on what basis do you conclude that ? Isn't the most likely error your assumption that the other continents must be affected ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.