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

The word "day" is used many times throughout the Bible. There is no indication in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible that "day" means anything other than a 24 hour period of night and day. If you apply the context and consistency analysis (of words/phrases used among many books of the Bible), which is used by Christian Bible scholars to explain-away many "apparent contradictions", a "day" in Genesis means 24 hours, not long periods. If you twist that word to mean something else, how can you trust other words in the Bible to mean what they apparently mean? This is known as "Cafeteria Religion" (picking what you want).

There is one thing that we have in common: We laymen look for simple explanations. So, let me try this one ...There are many layers of sediment, consisting of different material. Where did the mud come from? It had to be a higher elevation, right? But, if there are many sediment layers all at higher elevations (to pile-up the sediment), and there is a universal drenching of water, then all the higher elevations would be washing the material down at the same time, thus mixing the material, instead of layering it in separate materials. If upwelling was occurring, then you would expect to see disturbed material due to strong underwater current. Now consider how animal/plant types could be sorted and distributed nicely in each layer while all that is going on. Then consider that coincidence occurring all over the planet wherever sediments are found. Finally, consider that the mountain must be formed by raising it. Well, the sediment layers (or at least the topmost sediment layers) when the mountain tilts the layers would show signs of slumping, since they would just have emerged from the water. Oh yeah, one more thing. The original mountains that provided the mud for the sediments you are looking at... where are they? They couldn't have been eroded completely flat with the surrounding landscape.During some driving vacations across the country, I collected some of the "Roadside Geology" series. They all seem so scientific, but if you collect the lot of them, they all seem to tell a consistent country-wide story. Whereas, with Noah's Flood geology books (not found at the souveneir stores), there are spot stories about specific formations and very general stories, but no comprehensive detailed story that ties all the geological stories together in any level of detail comparable to what science describes in the Roadside series. I want to know if the dirt that I am looking at beside the road came from the West or the East, and whether that is consistent with the book two hundred miles away that describes the other formations.I know none of the above is convincing you, but it was fun.

Simple,
Based on your response to my message 119, your answers are along the lines of "Creative-ism", not "Creation-ism".

Simple,
These discussions are a good hobby, but evolution is what is being taught in the classroom, and creationism is trying to get in. You and other creationists can continue to evade serious consideration of your speculations, but it is creationism that sits by idly, so who's winning?It seems that Creationists want to "play science" in the education classroom, but not play by the rules of science.Until Creationists "qualify" a scientific explanation in geology by having an international scientific review, the general public sees no reason to introduce it into the public school classroom. It's not censorship, since private schools and vouchers in some states allow your beliefs to be taught. Prove your case to us and the public. I guarantee they don't have as much patience with ramblings as the debaters on this forum.However, I would be in favor of teaching kids how to differentiate pseudo-science from science. Would that be fine with you to help debunk the scientific explanation?So, Simple, go ahead and stick to your beliefs and creative geology. But, until you offer a substantive hypothesis that can be disproven, don't expect Creationism in the public classroom.

duplicate msg[This message has been edited by ThingsChange, 02-14-2004]

And, when you reply to Phatboy's question, please explain the reasoning that led you to believe the Bible's words over what science has learned. One more thing: Did you believe the Bible before or after learning scientific arguments that support evolution? Oh, rats, one more thing: Did you learn about evolution from a creationist point of view?