Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[createdtoworship]

if I see any more ad hominems, specifically abusive in nature I will be forced to start reporting posts, Just FYI. Which may mean points and removals of posts but more probaly would lead to a thread closure. So up to you. Do you want to insult and feel good about yourselves, or you want to debate honestly?

let me know.

 

[Tomk80]

this myth has been analyzed several times in this forum, but how could you know this?

again, uplift caused all the tall mountains due to tectonic shifting as a result of the subterainian crusts (hydroplate) bursting and releasing water.

Thats my theory and I am sticking to it.

Oh, did I mention this happened AFTER the flood?

You do realize that this would cause an outburst of energy enough to cook the earth and all it's inhabitants several times over, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

if I see any more ad hominems, specifically abusive in nature I will be forced to start reporting posts, Just FYI. Which may mean points and removals of posts but more probaly would lead to a thread closure. So up to you. Do you want to insult and feel good about yourselves, or you want to debate honestly?

let me know.

Don't stoop to their level, grady ... God will exalt you in due time.

These people run on short fuses and a near zero-tolerance for what we hold sacred.

 

[createdtoworship]

You do realize that this would cause an outburst of energy enough to cook the earth and all it's inhabitants several times over, don't you?

only if all the flood water came from under. I suggest only enough to cause tectonic unbalance for mountain upheaval. The rest of the water was a downpore of a water canopy that enveloped the earth as a mist and became a solid and fell.

 

[Tomk80]

it is actually relevant to the topic at hand. The use of adhominem in debate does not disqualify ones scientific views. This was all that was meant by the list, nothing more. You must prove your assessment of illelevancy. The burden of this proof lies in the one making the newer statements.

And I did. Just as the use of ad hominem does not disqualify ones scientific views, it doesn't qualify them either. The list is irrelevant. The arguments count.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wait? There are really people who believe that a global flood happened?

how did you get the sedimentary rock layer?

by desert dunes compacting?

lol

 

[createdtoworship]

All available evidence would support your assertion.

funny how all available evidence has missed this particular forum!

I haven't seen one person quote a peer review!

Thats pretty bad, I have been on here like a month now.

(oh yeah I quoted one yesterday!)

 

[freezerman2000]

Sorry, Detroit; Wikipedia says otherwise.
SOURCE

I've got a lot of pitch pine behind my house..maybe he was from MY neck of the woods!
Actually, I think it was tar (petroleum) that he used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

funny how all available evidence has missed this particular forum!

I haven't seen one person quote a peer review!

Thats pretty bad, I have been on here like a month now.

(oh yeah I quoted one yesterday!)

Did yo really think that would be a problem?

If I did, would it change your mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got a lot of pitch pine behind my house..maybe he was from MY neck of the woods!
Actually, I think it was tar (petroleum) that he used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)

So then where do you think Noah lived?

If you think the Flood was just a global one, then you're obligated to say Mesopotamia, are you not?

I don't adhere to a local flood model, so I can speculate he lived anywhere where the pitch pine grows.

Put another way:

Narrow minds → local flood; broad minds → global flood.

Those of them who like to accuse us of being narrow-minded need to look in the mirror, don't they?

 

[freezerman2000]

The Fertile Crescent (There is a lot of petrol by products there)..yet that does not mean that it was a global event.
A local flood flies in the face of tradition,so having the idea means a broad mind..

 

[createdtoworship]

The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

So the burden of proof lies on Him, who made a positive statement regarding my posts lack of relevancy.

like I said.

So your comment was irrelevant.

(notice my positive claim!)

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is a quote from the Book- mythology of modern dating methods - by john woodmorappe: enjoy!

"[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] et al. (1996b) have demonstrated that there exists a measurable bias between different laboratories which perform K-Ar age dating .

"Young basaltic rocks are among the most difficult for K-Ar age dating, often resulting in greater dispersion in the analytical results than assiciated with older rocks with higher K2O (fleck et al. 1996b p.205)

fleck, r.j. et al. 1996b . Age and character of basaltic rocks of the yucca Mountain region, southern Nevada. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (B4):8205-8227

an another note: dates are rejected primarily on an after-the-fact basis, meaning if the date doesn't fit the chronology or bias it is not accepted.

"contrary to the claims that discrepant dates being rare, they are, in fact more than common. It has been shown they are the rule,not the exception." - mythology of modern dating methods - john woodmorappe

dates that are invalidated are often covered up and tagged with a special language to validate them. Orwellian language it is called. These include "delayed uplift ages, cooling ages, thermochronologic information, rejuvenated dates, inherited isochrons, and many other types of doublespeak."- ibid . woodmorappe pg 96

book can be found here:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Mythology of Modern Dating Methods



simple. If evolution were wrong, and millions of years. No one in their right mind would fess up. They would simply cover their tracks and hope no one noticed. Because that is a true embarassment.

Secondly, there has been some successful helium date methods: among which come out significantly young....more info...

the RATE project was a peer reviewed project... raising some issues with helium tests giving young dates....""billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular"

Creation geophysics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

look up "Rate Project" if you have questions



my quess is subterrainian pressures built up, perhaps a lot of H2O down there. But not so much as to boil the oceans, only enough as suitable to release pressure. So it would be tectonics as the cause and the result, because you have settlement afterward. (the rest of the flood caused by a materializing water canopy over earth).

soooo, two people dropped out of the debate regarding K/AR dating, and one decided not to provide documentation for K/Ar dating of young rocks (being not allowed), so is there any others out there willing to take on the creationist perspective on K/Ar dating?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by gradyll

funny how all available evidence has missed this particular forum!

I haven't seen one person quote a peer review!

Thats pretty bad, I have been on here like a month now.

(oh yeah I quoted one yesterday!)
​

Did yo really think that would be a problem?

If I did, would it change your mind?

Ya never know unless ya try.



.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

soooo, two people dropped out of the debate regarding K/AR dating, and one decided not to provide documentation for K/Ar dating of young rocks (being not allowed), so is there any others out there willing to take on the creationist perspective on K/Ar dating?

I have a friend who obtained his Ph.D. from a well know west coast university in a geological related field. He was promptly hired by Shell Oil in TX to help find oil. Did I mention he's not a YEC? Did I also mention that Shell Oil doesn't hire any YEC's?

We can chew these PRATTS for kicks and giggles all we want here on CF, but at the end of the day, when real science has to be done, guess who gets the call?

BTW, can you name one agnostic, atheist, or non-religious geologist who is a YEC? Nope.

So you're free to read AIG all day long and their laughably wrong conclusions of those who actually publish the studies (you are aware that YEC's don't actually publish any thing of relevance, right?), but the rest of us, well, we'll accept the facts.

BTW, no one has ever been able to meet my challenge. Maybe you'd like to give it a go?

Dr. Shubin used the SM to predict where he might discover a fishapod (T. roseae). Was his discovery of Tiktaalik a result of the SM, or just dumb luck?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

E-scientists are not required to accept lists of real scientists, who are actually out in the field doing the work, and not just sitting at home behind a computer venting & ridiculing everything we hold sacred, while they breathe the air God created.

What about some of the so called "e scientists" you meet on here who are real scientists in the real world?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

how did you get the sedimentary rock layer?

by desert dunes compacting?

lol

Interestingly enough sedimentary deposits occur which are related to sand dunes. These are called aeolian deposits. You can tell them by the features on the individual sand grains (frosted) as well as the structure of the layers in the rick formation. Depending on the shape of the dune structures and angle of the layers you can tell a great deal about the dune environs.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

how did you get the sedimentary rock layer?
l

There is not just one sedimentary rock layer.

And because of this. Know a great deal about how sediments deposit and what they look like in the rock record.

Remember, there will be details to explain. If there is a noachian flood deposit it will carry some unique features.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

soooo, two people dropped out of the debate regarding K/AR dating, and one decided not to provide documentation for K/Ar dating of young rocks (being not allowed), so is there any others out there willing to take on the creationist perspective on K/Ar dating?

I didn't see your response to the xenolith issue or the Daleymple paper from 1969 discussing excess Ar that I posted earlier. Can you remind me of how the yec find problems with that as an explanation for anomalous young ages?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about some of the so called "e scientists" you meet on here who are real scientists in the real world?

What about them?

I assume they would accept that list; wouldn't you?

How does that old saying go? It takes one to know one?