The Flood

[TheBear]

Yes --- I'm not interested in an atheistic explanation of anything --- so long as there's a theistic one available.

If a scientific theory doesn't include God, is that what you would call an "atheistic explanation"?

Nothing hacks me faster than reading an article that starts out, "50 million years ago..."

Out of the question.

It's really sad watching someone as intelligent as yourself, intentionally closing yourself off from the real world. How disappointing. What a waste of intellect.

 

[AV1611VET]

If a scientific theory doesn't include God, is that what you would call an "atheistic explanation"?

Yes --- more appropriately though, it would be a "no-God explanation."

It's really sad watching someone as intelligent as yourself, intentionally closing yourself off from the real world. How disappointing. What a waste of intellect.

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm using my talents for the Lord.

The pay may not be as good as yours, but the retirement plan is dynamite!

 

[gamespotter10]

Yes --- more appropriately though, it would be a "no-God explanation."



Thanks for the compliment, but I'm using my talents for the Lord.

The pay may not be as good as yours, but the retirement plan is dynamite!

so, the theory of gravity is an atheistic theory because it doesn't say we're pulled down to earth by the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[AV1611VET]

so, the theory of gravity is an atheistic theory...

The explanation of the Theory of Gravity can be either atheistic, or theistic.

You can say G=m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

And that where it comes from, no one presently knows.

We would say G=m[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

And that it comes from God.

 

[TheBear]

Yes --- more appropriately though, it would be a "no-God explanation."

Does that mean the theory doesn't mention God, or does the theory have to state that no God caused the event/occurrence/phenomenon?

The pay may not be as good as yours, but the retirement plan is dynamite!

Oh really? What kind of feedback are you getting?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that mean the theory doesn't mention God, or does the theory have to state that no God caused the event/occurrence/phenomenon?

It would be "no-God understood".

For instance, all of those pictures that Thaumaturgy shows me are nice, but when the interpretations of those pictures automatically assume such things as:

• hundreds of thousands of years of history
• no global Flood
• no direct intervention from God

Then to me, it's an atheistic explanation.

 

[TheBear]

It would be "no-God understood".

So, the reason geologists haven't found the flood layer, is because they haven't added an understanding of God to the equation. Are there any creationists out there, who having an understanding of God, discovered the flood layer?

no global Flood

What scientific theory claims there was no global flood? Please direct me to a source.

no direct intervention from God

What scientific theory claims there was no direct intervention from God? Please direct me to a source.

 

[Elduran]

It would be "no-God understood".

For instance, all of those pictures that Thaumaturgy shows me are nice, but when the interpretations of those pictures automatically assume such things as:

• hundreds of thousands of years of history
• no global Flood
• no direct intervention from God

Then to me, it's an atheistic explanation.

One which hundreds of millions (at least) of christians worldwide are happy to accept.

Very atheistic...

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Cartoons?

I guess that proves it... this is a Poe.

ive been saying that for months now.

Avett posts are Poells. (Poe plus a dnd creature thats been seen in Harrypotter "Book Taxon")

There is only so much you can do as a Poell before you run out of material.

 

[Split Rock]

It would be "no-God understood".

For instance, all of those pictures that Thaumaturgy shows me are nice, but when the interpretations of those pictures automatically assume such things as:

hundreds of thousands of years of history

This is not an assumption, it is inferred from the evidence.

no global Flood

This is not an assumption, it is inferred from the evidence.

no direct intervention from God

Yes! You actually got this one right! It is a necessary assumption, but one science is forced to make, since it is restricted to natural or physical laws only.

You are One for Three... a definite improvement!

 

[Split Rock]

So, the reason geologists haven't found the flood layer, is because they haven't added an understanding of God to the equation. Are there any creationists out there, who having an understanding of God, discovered the flood layer?

LOL! A very good question! Any answers?

What scientific theory claims there was no direct intervention from God? Please direct me to a source.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Scientists do make the assumption that
God (any God) does not directly interfere with their experimental results, or the data they collect. This is a necessary assumption, but it is an assumption.

 

[Vene]

Even if a god was interfering with the results, he/she/it/they seem to interfere with them consistently. If anybody wants a theory to be religious just say (insert name of deity here) did it, but here's how (name of deity) did it.

 

[Joman]

The Grand Canyon was formed quickly at the end of the flood.
The sediment layers couldn't have been formed over long expanses of time since each layer consists of a simple and unique recipe of constituent materials. there isn't any way to explain how over an eon of time only a unique recipe of constituent materials was deposited.
The specific gravity of the materials in a sedimentary layer isn't the dominant force applied. It is only dominant in still water.
The dominant force in flowing water is particle size.
Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.
The surface of the earth isn't uniform. It is instead highly complex with massive variation world wide from locale to locale. This is what a global flood would do.

Joman.

 

[Vene]

The Grand Canyon was formed quickly at the end of the flood.
The sediment layers couldn't have been formed over long expanses of time since each layer consists of a simple and unique recipe of constituent materials. there isn't any way to explain how over an eon of time only a unique recipe of constituent materials was deposited.
The specific gravity of the materials in a sedimentary layer isn't the dominant force applied. It is only dominant in still water.
The dominant force in flowing water is particle size.
Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.
The surface of the earth isn't uniform. It is instead highly complex with massive variation world wide from locale to locale. This is what a global flood would do.

Joman.

Read the thread through. The Grand Canyon was one of the first topics addressed. It was discussed on the second page for your god's sake.

 

[Split Rock]

Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.

Do you have any evidence do back this statement up?

The surface of the earth isn't uniform. It is instead highly complex with massive variation world wide from locale to locale. This is what a global flood would do.

Is there anything that a global flood would not be capable of doing? In other words, is there any geological feature we should not see in the geological record if it is do to a global flood, or are you just going to claim that a global flood can explain anything?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The Grand Canyon was formed quickly at the end of the flood.
The sediment layers couldn't have been formed over long expanses of time since each layer consists of a simple and unique recipe of constituent materials.

This is far from true. I suggest you read Grand Canyon Geology by Buess and Morales for some accurate information. You can get some of it HERE.

there isn't any way to explain how over an eon of time only a unique recipe of constituent materials was deposited.

Actually most of the depositional environments are pretty well understood though there are certainly questions about some specific layers.

The specific gravity of the materials in a sedimentary layer isn't the dominant force applied. It is only dominant in still water.
The dominant force in flowing water is particle size.
Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.

Nonsense. You need to study the actual rocks there to see that they could not have been deposited in this way. Thaumaturgy has been into this lately and may have something to say. I don't have time right now but I would like to ask you how animal tracks and burrows got preserved in layers deposited by water that was rapidly changing its speed and direction of flow over a vast area.

The surface of the earth isn't uniform. It is instead highly complex with massive variation world wide from locale to locale. This is what a global flood would do.

Joman.

And how would it do this without leaving any evidence? And while we are at it, how did this flood deposit massive salt layers like the Silurian salts we see in Michigan?

 

[Loudmouth]

Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.

Floods don't form huge limestone layers. They don't form eolian deposits complete with scorpion and spider tracks. They don't produce gooseneck meanders.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Floods don't form huge limestone layers. They don't form eolian deposits complete with scorpion and spider tracks.[/quopte] As seen the Coconino Sandstones of course.

They don't produce gooseneck meanders.

I posted a picture of one on page 8 of this very thread. I have never heard any YEC explain how a flood could have produced such a structure.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I really would be interested to see if Joman, can, using physics, explain how a flood can create not one, but multiple, cases of inundation, with a layer of desert dune-type deposits in one deposit.

It would be fun to see how Joman explains the entirety of the Grand Canyon Strata:

Using just one Flood.

And preferably JUST ONE FLOOD that is biblical, ie lasted less than 2 years.

That seems like it would be pretty simple task for one who can use the word "vector" in a post!

I'll start him off, here's the Hjulstrom Diagram:

And here's STOKES LAW:

Now, git to it!

 

[FishFace]

The Grand Canyon was formed quickly at the end of the flood.
The sediment layers couldn't have been formed over long expanses of time since each layer consists of a simple and unique recipe of constituent materials. there isn't any way to explain how over an eon of time only a unique recipe of constituent materials was deposited.

Whoever told you that lied. Refer to our resident geologist thaumaturgy.

The specific gravity of the materials in a sedimentary layer isn't the dominant force applied. It is only dominant in still water.
The dominant force in flowing water is particle size.
Formations like the Grand Canyon can be formed very quickly in a global flood enviroment. Flow rates, and vectors can change rapidly to cause every manner of deposition found.

I take it you've not seen thaum's diagram of the particle size/fluid velocity combinations necessary for deposition, transportation and erosion.

The surface of the earth isn't uniform. It is instead highly complex with massive variation world wide from locale to locale. This is what a global flood would do.

Really? I would've thought a global flood would create a global flood layer - a layer that was consistently found all over the world except where there was evidence of it having been eroded. It should look pretty much the same, since it would tend towards homogeneity, and would of course date to the same time the world over.

Where is this layer?