Where does the "Flood" start?

[Paul K]

hmm...There were another thread that was discussing the evidence for Noah's flood world wide. and it was locked because of the debate getting out of control. Now this, All I can say is... keep an open mind, discuss rationally.

Now. my point being is...it wouldn't matter if I decided to post articles that I found in Answersingenesis.org or any other articles that I read from a scientific based Christian writer, or whatnot, it still wouldn't be enough to convince a person who are totally in denial when it comes to having faith that God has the supernatural power to do whatever He wants to do on earth. He made a donkey speak, He made the storm stop, He made the sea part for the Isrealites in their exodus from Egypt, He made Jesus rise from the dead, He made lazarus rise from the dead. etc. Isn't that enough to believe that God can make a world flood happen, and according to the bible, Noah and his family was shut in the ark for almost a year. For a local flood, that will be unheard of, being stuck in a boat for one whole year, at the mercy of the winds, rain, waves etc.

Just my thought.
W

 

[Loudmouth]

Not necessarily.

If Someone omnipotent cleaned it up, then any evidence could have been omnipotently removed.

In fact, a planet could be in sad shape ... said planet wiped clean by a global flood ... then said planet come out cleaner than it was before said flood occurred.

To expect to see mud here and there, water marks all over the place, and fossils lying around would be expecting an incomplete clean-up procedure ... done on purpose.

Imagine telling your son to take the car through the car wash, and he comes home and says he left dirt here & there as evidence that the car was dirty at one time.

Food for thought:

Suppose God wanted the earth to look better than it was before the Flood?

If you were on a jury, would you be convinced to find the defendant not guilty by the argument that God could have planted false evidence at the crime scene?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were on a jury, would you be convinced to find the defendant not guilty by the argument that God could have planted false evidence at the crime scene?

"Planting false evidence" is not the same thing as "cleaning up."

You don't put a dirty shirt in the washing machine, clean it ... then inspect the shirt afterwards and wonder where the dirt is, do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Planting false evidence" is not the same thing as "cleaning up."

Your embedded age nonsense and cleaning up the flood would require God to plant fake fossils and other fake evidence, such as the Cliffs at Dover which have all the evidence of millions of years of deposition.

You don't put a dirty shirt in the washing machine, clean it ... then inspect the shirt afterwards and wonder where the dirt is, do you?

The problem is that we have the dirt, and fossils already in the dirt.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your embedded age nonsense and cleaning up the flood would require God to plant fake fossils and other fake evidence, such as the Cliffs at Dover which have all the evidence of millions of years of deposition.

And from another thread:

I don't believe in a god that implants fossils and age or rocks and strata that are millions and billions of years old, but are only 6,000 years old, has Noah building an Ark in New Jersey, and then removing all the flood water to Neptune, etc., etc., etc. I want no part of any such god.

So let me get this straight, Loudmouth:

Whether evidence was buried in the earth (fossils), swept up and left on the surface (White Cliffs), or transported elsewhere in the solar system, it's "fake," isn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

And from another thread:
So let me get this straight, Loudmouth:

Whether evidence was buried in the earth (fossils), swept up and left on the surface (White Cliffs), or transported elsewhere in the solar system, it's "fake," isn't it?

You can't get hundreds of feet of coccolithophores in a single year of a flood. It would require God to magic them into being as fake evidence for millions of years of deposition.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't get hundreds of feet of coccolithophores in a single year of a flood.

They had been accumulating since the Fall, chief.

Circa 4003 BC.

 

[Loudmouth]

They had been accumulating since the Fall, chief.

Circa 4003 BC.

Even 4,000 years isn't enough. It certainly isn't enough to get billions of years of radioactive decay into rocks. Besides, how do you get the coccolithophores to jump out of the water and onto the top of the cliffs?

That same formation is found under most of Europe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides, how do you get the coccolithophores to jump out of the water and onto the top of the cliffs?

From another post:

Whether evidence was buried in the earth (fossils), swept up and left on the surface (White Cliffs), or transported elsewhere in the solar system, it's "fake," isn't it?

Ahem ... which word(s) kinda give it away as to how it could have been done?

 

[RickG]

"Planting false evidence" is not the same thing as "cleaning up."

Embedding age is planting false evidence. Cleaning up (sending the water to Neptune) is altering evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedding age is planting false evidence.

Off topic to the immediate discussion at hand.

Cleaning up (sending the water to Neptune) is altering evidence.

What you consider "altering evidence," I call "being tidy."

 

[RickG]

Even 4,000 years isn't enough. It certainly isn't enough to get billions of years of radioactive decay into rocks. Besides, how do you get the coccolithophores to jump out of the water and onto the top of the cliffs?

That same formation is found under most of Europe.

From my Stratigraphy thread:

Another thing to understand with sedimentary deposits is the rate at which particular sediments are deposited. Here are some average rates specific to marine environments. Figures shown below are expressed in cm/1000 yr.

Continental margin

Continental shelf 30
continental slope 20
Fjord 400
River Delta 700,000

Marginal ocean basins

Black Sea 30
Gulf of California 100
Gulf of Mexico 10
Clyde Sea 500

Deep-oceam sediments

Foraminiferal mids 1
Dee[ sea muds 0.1

(source: Oceanography, M.G. Gross, 1975)

 

[Loudmouth]

From another post:
Ahem ... which word(s) kinda give it away as to how it could have been done?

There wouldn't be enough coccolithophores after 2,000 years to sweep up. Also, these deposits are spread over thousands of square miles, not in a single pile.

 

[RickG]

What you consider "altering evidence," I call "being tidy."

And you are also just making it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

There wouldn't be enough coccolithophores after 2,000 years to sweep up. Also, these deposits are spread over thousands of square miles, not in a single pile.

And yet, there they are, spread over thousands of square miles.

Weird, isn't it?

Perhaps coccolithophores aren't what you think they are then, eh?

Or perhaps, if they are what higher alcedama teaches they are -- and let me stress -- if they are ...

Then maybe the fallen angels brought them here from elsewhere to add to earth's population?

Who knows?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you are also just making it up.

I'm hypothesizing.

And I'm glad I am.

Else you guys would be a runaway train for the GOD IS DECEPTIVE express.

We need people like me ... willing to make suppositions ... to keep science in check, spreading its philosophy like a cancer.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet, there they are, spread over thousands of square miles.

Indeed, something we shouldn't see on an Earth that has only been around for 6,000 years. As RickG demonstrates up above, we should only see around 100-200 cm of chalk instead of hundreds of feet.

Perhaps coccolithophores aren't what you think they are then, eh?

What are they? Quadrillions of individually created fake fossils?

They just happen to look like phytoplankton?

 

[Loudmouth]

Else you guys would be a runaway train for the GOD IS DECEPTIVE express.

"Perhaps coccolithophores aren't what you think they are then, eh?"--AV

Once again, it is you who is pushing fake fossils.

 

[RickG]

They had been accumulating since the Fall, chief.

Circa 4003 BC.

So everything between the fall and the flood is of Cretaceous age? Houston, we have a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, something we shouldn't see on an Earth that has only been around for 6,000 years.

Really?

Should we not see the Barringer crater as well?

As RickG demonstrates up above, we should only see around 100-200 cm of chalk instead of hundreds of feet.

Only if you're thinking within the confines of the Big Bang paradigm.

What are they?

I don't care what they are.

Quadrillions of individually created fake fossils? They just happen to look like phytoplankton?

Even fake fruit baskets are created for a reason.

However, I don't believe white cliffs were made from fake material.

Mislabeled material? probably.

After all, we're called "Homo sapiens," aren't we?

May as well mislabel white cliffs as well.