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

Water covered Alberta, and many areas are said to have been in a shallow sea there, what is the basis for a sea to be thought of as shallow?

Glad you answered, a little bird told me you were the one (or one of the ones) qualified to get it on with Walt! I better be careful in my answers. I'm also glad you said that! I suspected as much. So then, would it not be true that IF there was a flood, that all sorts of marine deposits would be found just about anywhwere? Also, Ben Gadd's book (I think it was handbook of the Rockies) tells us of how the mysterious huge block of chert is seen (I seen it) by the side of a road, and is normally thiught of as being formed in DEEP water. In this case, of course they try to tell us it was a shallow sea. Ever heard of that one?

OK so we can't discuss it here, but I didn't like the pictures on the thread the "moderator" put me. I don't think he or she (I'm not sure if it's an 'alter ego' or two different people) would let me start a thread on that myself. Anyhow, I guess you would have me assume Walt has some message in hand, and despite you being willing to go the extra mile, and debate (the way he seems to insist it be done) he's simply held up the thing because he's taken years to pick an editor! wow, that's all news to me. Well, no, not on purpose, at least, but I feel a little like in the Wizard of OZ, when they finally come face to face with the scary wizard, and find out he (in this case your pet theory) is actually not as formidable as was feared.
Actually it seems a rather interesting and meaty post you made, so, I'll make it 2 different replies, in the interest of post length.

I heard there was more limestone than uniformism can account for, as it is now produced. I guess if we want to ASSUME the limestone had something to do with shallow seas-we could. No. I would think a flood would have a greater and more widespread effect. Well, It was a 'regular' geologist I think who wrote the book, and there are high cliffs full of the stuff. He calls it the "most mysterious rock" in the mountains.

So, then, why would we expect a world wash of water to leave dead fish in every inch of the planet? I could see there would be concentrations, exceptions, etc. --unless you tried to say they were swimming around for 'millions of years' which I think would require what you DON'T find! So called glacial deposits, I think include a lot more than some morraines in high mountains, (they had to change their veiw of some lakes they tried to say were formed by morraines up there, as they ween't after all) Some like to say the 'till' was caused by a big ice sheet (goin uphill and down and all around unlike today's ice can do )
OK bug houses were found. So how would that be a problem? Were no nests washed around, buried, floated on debris, or reintroduced after the flood that would explain it? I suspect I'd be rich if I knew that one. Let's start with the process of elimination, which layer of fossils (dead creatures) usually buried in old mud, hence fossilized, would the flood NOT account for? As far as coming up with a creationist strata list, I don't know. Reminds me a little of the so called fossil index, of which, were I a fisherman, I could go out and catch at least one fish that was on the index! [qs]Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, strata laid down during the peak of the global flood (i.e. globally correlatable strata all deposited under water)? First thing that comes to mind is where can we not find some? that's not a problem for me. I figure they are everywhere they ended up, and it would be a shame to pick some poor spot you havn't found certain marine victims (yet) and assume it was shallow! glad to hear it! Seems like your phantom column could use more than a little weasel room!

why would desert plants or animals not be expected? And 'grounded glaciers' Careful, I said "unless you tried to say" if you are not trying to relax, you're off the hook. Many of them are, no doubt, especially in colder countries, you have any evidence ALL scratch marks are? It lasted about a year. It happeneded I think less than 4000 yrs ago. What exactly is the problem? Looks like a rock! What was difficult specifically? probably more concerned with building churches! tracks and tail marks? wow. It seems to be you with the problem of trying to assign it that riddiculous age! Perhaps bible believers didn't have a big reason to doubt the obvious! And now that someone tried to put the house together upside down (without a Creator)a few are waking up! coelacanth which Walt says was on the Index fossil list till '38 So why is it in some areas that finding certain things and not others disturbs you? The one you respect quite a bit, but apparently is non existant in many places. That's not just Mr Brown who talks about that one. I think I just figured out what 'hand waving' is, correct me if I'm wrong. It refers to Christians waving their hands together, like saying Halelujah or something, and believing in faith God would not lie in His account of it? (Not needing evidence)

I guess things were really chewed up and tossed about. At least there are formations or deposits streching thousands of sq miles of the old mud, and filled with nice little fossils. Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

Are you suggesting that it is silly becuse there was water in the flood, and the plants or animals in question are now desert ones? Or what? Everywhere just about I look I see evidence! How about the Canadian Rockies, sky high mountains of mostly sedimentary material choc ful of fossils, (sea life etc) Including the famous Burgess shale with all that quickly buried sea life. (support age claims? that's a big topic) why don't you come on out of the closet and spit it out, why could this have not been a flood item? You brought it up, not me I think saving the world wasn't biggest on the list, like you'd think it oughtta be! gotta admit I'm impressed, I thought most of the bigwigs were enemies of the faith, not just weak in it! Sorry but Genesis was talked about by Jesus, as was the flood. How don't they? Seems like scurring animals and prints in rock are not that scary you aren't perfect at paying attention either, don't bother going back to what I said, I'll clue you in I said "IF" I were to fish. Walt says it was in the index. Are you saying he was misinformed? Because they were a part of almost all life that got wiped out, they must've ended up somewhere! What else could they have done-got beamed up? Is your problem visualizing what are now desert critters in a water filled world? Or what? Creationists have said the column is mostly imaginary, and the world is full of places where it is not as expected -layers in wrong order, or missing etc. You must have heard about it. I would point out here evolution wasn't your idea, and although you have become well versed in it's tenets, basically you are echoing the party line. How is it you would be familiar with free thought? Making up data is no good your folks are specialists in that Piltdown, pig's teeth etc!! When I think of people waving up hands, in a Christian setting, it isn't really a cheating, lack of faith that comes to mind. I guess it is then a poor parable! I'll go back and look at your scratch photo and see if I can. It looked like from right near a retreating glacier, which of course would make it too easy. [Fix quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]

Unless it's a trick photo, looks a lot like glacier marks. Explain them..Ice age? Warm waters, climate change, & like that

don't trolls get paid for allowing admission somewhere? Your idea of substancial discussion is your own but don't insult me saying just because I don't value old earth assumptions and theories, it's not substancial. Perhaps If I went around making snide comments on threads, and offering literally nothing, you'd feel better. Hop along sir snipey

Apparently you are missing something. If the world was wiped out and every living thing why is it strange I asked you to explain why finding 'desert' deposits is a problem? Under for example the hydroplate theory whole continents slid apart (did you forget you seemed to think the fit wasn't better at the ridge) mountain ranges rose, and were full of squeezed up fossils in some cases. How would it be unusual first of all, that some iguanas or cacti got killed? Like I say tell me where it hurts, and I'll tell you who to call, but be specific! If you have real good solid reasons, why the dedert life was definitly pre flood, fine I'll try and deal with that, when it becomes a 'known quantity' in the equation. OK I guess you think I should know your photo, this is the kind of thing I meant by spit it out. I don't see why I should quake at the sight of some scratches. What is your point about them, that they prove something?! He talked about Adam, the dates are all in the Bible, and the ages, (even the morning and night, which couldn't have been too long, cause things need the ol sun you know) allowing for slight different interpratation pretty well known. (No parable or coded mystery here) Jesus said how the earth would be just before He returned, as in the days of Noe, when he entered into the ark (Mt 24:37-39)..till the FLOOD came and took them ALL away! Wiped em all out! And do you think it's good science that God Himself closed the ark doo? Is it good science that Jesus rose from the dead-you know, someone could've been there telling us His body's absolute decay rate! Is it good science that Enoch walked with God, and was no more (body and all, bing, up to heaven)? Are historical records of peoples lifetimes, children, how old they were bad science (they used to live almost 1000 yrs) - Looks like people could use that kind of bad science now! Is it a predictable evolution for John, to not be affected by boiling oil, when they dipped him in, or the 3 lads thrown in the extra hot fire without picking up even the smell of smoke as the scientific (verifiable) result of that experiment? And was Elijah operating as one would scientifically expect when he called down fire from heaven? Lastly did hubble pick up the sun standing still while God held it till someone could finish, and win a battle?! Or do you and perhaps your 'church' think only evolution type speculation is valid, and Jesus never rose from the dead? And if He did, if He's such an incompetent fairy story telling liar, why didn't He just crawl back in and stay dead? (Instead of going down where science has never been and really only assumes it knows everything that goes on there-and preached to spirits living there) wow. lying about creationists questioning the 'holy' column? Or what? I should be flattered you think I know quite a bit or something.
here again if you've heard it before, spit it out, what is it you want, just the right set up so you can tell us how great it is? You say they're all wrong, go ahead spend a sentence or two and clear it up! By the way, the impression is coming across you like to try and keep people in the dark, by not being clear. (this ipsy dipso thing, what is it)? So, you get paid to be outside the (evolutions) box, and are thinking you are of independant thought. Since I don't know you I guess I'll have to try and believe it. (Reminds me of the story of the little boy in trouble for hitting and spitting at a classmate. "Don't you know the devil made you do those things Johnny?" "Oh no, hitting him may have been the devil's idea, but spitting in his eye was mine!" So, I don't know where your ideas start and the "devil's" end!!) funny I was thinking the same about you! But you oughta (being a scientist and all) come out with some stuff! And, as I said I'm looking at his (Walt's) theory, and trying to hold it up to see if it could stand. My opinion of it has been it may not be perfect, but its better than that forgery pile of evolution. Someone posted the errant daters must be given another chance, and not thrown out of court for saying what was not true. How about the known hoaxes, and frauds often done (that were caught) by evo liars? Should we give the frauds another chance as well? (don't pretend you don't know about most of them, it's common knowledge). The whole mess should be thrown out. And God guarantees us it will. Thinking outside the box? William Dawson till his dying day swore a fossil he found was genuine. His evo good buddies got together and found a similar looking rock I think it was in Italy, and pronounced it must be the same.(it wasn't a fossil but looked the same) Accepting Dawson's would have put them all out of a job, as it would have disproved the theory out of hand! His out of the box thinking (he was a bigwig too) I admire. You step out of the box and watch what your buddies will do to you! I've seen glaciers like the Columbia ice field, and seen lots of their effects there. But what my concern was is for someone to look at stirations way out far from any such thing and then say that the flood never scratched it, it must've been those glaciers. All glory to the glaciers. Then the till spread all around, and say it must have been that ol ice sheet. Is it possible the extent of the ice was exagerated,(in their minds, not so much on purpose) to make it account for more than was actually the case? Now if what one thought was that a known advancing glacier left usually certain marks, therefore those other marks way over yonder look a lot like that, then hey they're no flood scratches after all!
Walt is smart guy not wanting to be 'edited' or moderated by the type of moderators you seem to like being surrounded with here. Perhaps you could do some of these things these churches have failed on for so long? You sound like you just might be someone who could give'm a run for their money! You could possibly put together one of those models that are lacking. You may get a better one than Walt's! Since you know about at least the important part of the bible, salvation, do you want to arrive in heaven, and feel sad about all the things you could have done to help folks believe more in Jesus? Move now, while you still can! [Fix quoting. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 02-06-2004]

igneous rock apparently according to Walt's theory was coming up at the flood time, and mountains being formed quickly, squeezed up. so which combination of these things is hard to understand? There was a rising of the flood waters, there was a receding of the waters. There was great wind, currents, volcanic activity, etc. Not all magma was deposited underwater. Which sandstone do you mean and why is it absolute that it was formed under dry conditions. Why would a dry period in the recession stage of the flood not handle it? Why do you believe it seems so many things by faith?

What are now dry animals, if they were among those killed in the Deluge would have done whatever they could for as long as they could before death. In a world full of floating trees, debris, and heaven knows what could some scurriers survive a portion of the flood, land in the drying out period,(scurry around) but perhaps drown in some type later wave, water drain, or freeze in an 'ice age', or get buried in a squeeze up? Or could some huge chunk of land be carried away, with scurriers in it to be deposited later? Since you don't seem to acknowledge some basic elements in the formula, how can you expect to hit the right answer?

Piltdown Nebraska, on and on. It's not opinion there were some forgeries. Deal with it

part of the globe! What order would you expect when talking about a world ending catastrophe? Some well ordered layers globally as you would expect in an evolution model?