The dry flood

DURANG0 · #31 11th February 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by JGMEERT

JM: That's easy enough. There is no flood model! If you think there is, then find the answers to the following questions:

No flood model? I'm surprised you would present such a blatant lie JM.

a. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the pre-flood/flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature.

I'm not quite I understand your question, or should I have called it a statement?
The YEC flood models (that you falsely claim don't exist) show a pre-flood boundry can be seen at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
For example the angular positioning of the Chuar Group, Unkar Group,Vishnu and Zoroaster are theroized to show what could be the results of the fountain of the deep breaking open. The horizontal strata above that represents flood deposits. At this moment I don't intend to go continent by continent. The point is, you fibbed JM. the models do exist. Sorry.

b. 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)? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for these rocks in the creationist literature.

This sounds like a strawman argument to me JM. I don't think the YEC models call out for what you claim should be. I would not expect to find this so-called globally correlatable strata. Each strata represents a biome of an individual area, or geological location. Do you really expect to see the same biome stretching globally? I don't

c. Where can a geologist find, on a global basis, the flood/post-flood boundary? You will not find a continent-by-continent listing of formational names and type sections for this boundary in the creationist literature. To be fair, creationists have a little more leeway in defining this boundary since the flood waters receded over a slightly longer time interval, but it still should be possible to provide considerable detail.

The post flood boundry is hard to set. For example the post flood boundry no longer exist in many places on the globe. The Grand Canyon is one of those places.

Cheers

Joe Meert

shenzhou · #32 11th February 2004, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

The YEC flood models (that you falsely claim don't exist) show a pre-flood boundry can be seen at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
For example the angular positioning of the Chuar Group, Unkar Group,Vishnu and Zoroaster are theroized to show what could be the results of the fountain of the deep breaking open. The horizontal strata above that represents flood deposits.

These would be the same strata that contain spider and scorpion tracks and raindrop impressions - and so could not have been deposited underwater.

http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/cocotr.html

see also: Absurd YEC claims about the Coconino Sandstones. http://www.christianforums.com/t5073...light=Coconino

DURANG0 · #33 11th February 2004, 09:27 PM

You need to realize that the flood covered an area, then like the tide receded, exposing the land for a short duration allowing animals as you mentioned above to walk on the surface. As the flood continued the waters reoccupied the area, finally covering the track allowing them to be captured in the soon to be rock.

Near the top of the sediment laid down by the flood waters in the early stages we find the Coconino Sandstones. The area of the sandstone exceeds 100,000 square miles and it’s volume is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles. It is believed that the the material for this layer came from the north being transported a great distance. No local source area is known. Many uniformatarians believe that the Coconino formation was made by sand that was moved by the winds from the north. The creationist have a different opinion. The slope angels of the sandwaves indicate that the sand was deposited in water rather than blown in place by wind. There is also a feature known as parting lineation which is formed on sand surfaces in flowing water and is not present in desert dunes. Studies have also shown that the size of the sand represents sand waves and not those of current desert sand dunes.
The sand in the Toroweap formation was deposited from sand eroded from the Coconino sandstone which suggest that there was substantial water currents and not a sluggish sea. It should also be interesting to note that the abrupt and flat contact of the Toroweap with the Coconino and in places an intertounging relationship between the two indicate that no long period of time separates the two. This is what the flood model would suggest.

ref:
Grand Canyon
Monument to Catastrophe
Edited by Steve A. Austin

armed2010 · #34 11th February 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

You need to realize that the flood covered an area, then like the tide receded, exposing the land for a short duration allowing animals as you mentioned above to walk on the surface. As the flood continued the waters reoccupied the area, finally covering the track allowing them to be captured in the soon to be rock.

.................................please be joking?

DURANG0 · #35 11th February 2004, 09:32 PM

Why would I be joking? Do you actually think your mocking attitude refutes what I presented?

Arikay · #36 11th February 2004, 09:34 PM

I thought I had heard them all... ...I was wrong.

I never remember reading that part in the bible, maybe creationist bibles come with blank pages saying "please write here" so they can come up with all this stuff and still be taking the bible literally.

Originally Posted by DURANG0

You need to realize that the flood covered an area, then like the tide receded, exposing the land for a short duration allowing animals as you mentioned above to walk on the surface. As the flood continued the waters reoccupied the area, finally covering the track allowing them to be captured in the soon to be rock.

armed2010 · #37 11th February 2004, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

Why would I be joking? Do you actually think your mocking attitude refutes what I presented?

Im at a loss for words actually. You actually believe what you just wrote?

DURANG0 · #38 11th February 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Arikay

I thought I had heard them all... ...I was wrong.
I never remember reading that part in the bible, maybe creationist bibles come with blank pages saying "please write here" so they can come up with all this stuff and still be taking the bible literally.

That's because creation science is science and not religion like evolution is.

Arikay · #39 11th February 2004, 09:49 PM

AIG, ICR, DrDino, CreationEvidence, All would disagree with you that creationism is not based on a literal reading of the bible. One of the few things they do agree on actually.

BTW, are you going to keep saying evolution is a religion, without backing it up? Maybe you can make a thread showing how evolution is a religion, you can start be giving a basic definition of the theory of evolution. If not, then maybe you can stop saying things you aren't willing to back up.

Originally Posted by DURANG0