Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

[Mr Strawberry]

I usually correct typos in quotes when I spot them. Sometimes I'm bad
and correct them without asking or indicating they were there. My bad.

We are talking about material linked from other webpages. You never even bother to read those, let alone worry about typographic errors.

 

[SkyWriting]

We are talking about material from linked from other webpages. You never even bother to read those, let alone worry about typographic errors.

Since you complain about both situations, then we are brothers.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Since you complain about both situations, then we are brothers.

I criticise you for not bothering to read links, yes. I don't think I'm alone there. But I am not criticising gradyll for "proofreading" material from his links. I just think it likely that he is using the wrong word to describe what he is doing when he checks through webpages he might link to or use in his posts. I suspect he is checking that the material is consistent with the point he wants to make. That is a different thing entirely. But if I'm wrong and he is indeed checking that the page is free of typographic errors, then good for him. I've never heard of anyone doing it before, I certainly don't expect to have to check for typos in webpages I'm linking to or quoting from, but if he 'proofreads' them with an eye to correcting them, then I'm certainly not criticising him for it. It would, however, be a poor reflection on the quality of the webpages he is using as sources.

 

[SkyWriting]

I criticise you for not bothering to read links, yes. I don't think I'm alone there. But I am not criticising gradyll for "proofreading" material from his links. I just think it likely that he is using the wrong word to describe what he is doing when he checks through webpages he might link to or use in his posts.

I suspect he is checking that the material is consistent with the point he wants to make. That is a different thing entirely.

Yes. We call that thing "research".

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Yes. We call that thing "research".

It's not "research" in the traditional sense of the word, but more of a retrospective meta analysis of the data.

 

[CabVet]

Yes. We call that thing "research".

No, research is gathering the data, writing hypotheses and drawing conclusions. The "thing" you are referred to is called "reading".

 

[createdtoworship]

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

No because they are not only ON mountains they are IN mountains which tells me the part with the sea shells was at one time part of the sea bottom.

Why are the tops of high mountains covered in snow even in the summer? because they are so high and it's cold?
What do you think the state of the water would be if it covered those high mountains? Frozen?
What do you think a boat would do in frozen water that was above the mountains? Get stuck in the ice?

yes, they are both.

However there is sufficient evidence to point both to an upheaval and to a global flood, which perhaps happened simultaneously

exhibit A would be the global sedimentary rock laid down by water

it would be impossible to lay that down without a global size body of water

 

[rikerjoe]

yes, they are both.However there is sufficient evidence to point both to an upheaval and to a global flood, which perhaps happened simultaneously.

exhibit A would be the global sedimentary rock laid down by water

Which layer would that be, exactly?

it would be impossible to lay that down without a global size body of water

ONLY if it happened all at once. Otherwise, no.

 

[CabVet]

yes, they are both.

However there is sufficient evidence to point both to an upheaval and to a global flood, which perhaps happened simultaneously

exhibit A would be the global sedimentary rock laid down by water

it would be impossible to lay that down without a global size body of water

Good try, but there is no such layer. Try again.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

yes, they are both.

However there is sufficient evidence to point both to an upheaval and to a global flood, which perhaps happened simultaneously

exhibit A would be the global sedimentary rock laid down by water

it would be impossible to lay that down without a global size body of water

I am hopeful that you realize tat the sedimentary rocks on earth show countlless different types of depositional histories from lakes to seas to rivers to even SAND DUNES AND WIND DEPOSITS.

Sand dunes and desert type deposits are very hard to make in a flood. And river deposits usually mean there is NONriver space around the river.

On top of that within the sedimentary record is evidence of erosion and removal of entire layers.

You will need to point to one specific portion of the sedimentary layer to make your case .

 

[EveryTime]

Something as physical as a WW flood would not require 'Faith' to believe because the evidence would be all around us.
'Faith' is only brought into play when there is no evidence, I would ask you to have 'Faith' in me when I had no evidence and was telling you lies.

 

[Split Rock]

However there is sufficient evidence to point both to an upheaval and to a global flood, which perhaps happened simultaneously

exhibit A would be the global sedimentary rock laid down by water


it would be impossible to lay that down without a global size body of water

Sorry, but there is no global sedimentary layer or layers in the geological column. That is exactly what the early Christian geologists of the 19th century looked for (and mostly expected to find), but could not. See: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

Oh and one more thing... sediment alone does not implicate any flood. Marine deposits, for example, are deposited in the ocean, not by any flood.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, but there is no global sedimentary layer or layers in the geological column. That is exactly what the early Christian geologists of the 19th century looked for (and mostly expected to find), but could not. See: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

Oh and one more thing... sediment alone does not implicate any flood. Marine deposits, for example, are deposited in the ocean, not by any flood.

what we see is rock layers laid down in fact in a layer by layer set up, with no time for erosion.

that would be a catastrophic laying down.

what we see are 10,000 duckbill dinasaurs in montana, and other dinasaur graveyards with food in their mouth. That was not a local flood.

what we see is sedimentary rock laid down in vast places throughout the globe so much so that many theorize oceans were over the americas at some point in the past.

it very much looks like a global flood.

it very much looks like a quick laying down of the geologic column.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am hopeful that you realize tat the sedimentary rocks on earth show countlless different types of depositional histories from lakes to seas to rivers to even SAND DUNES AND WIND DEPOSITS.

Sand dunes and desert type deposits are very hard to make in a flood. And river deposits usually mean there is NONriver space around the river.

On top of that within the sedimentary record is evidence of erosion and removal of entire layers.

You will need to point to one specific portion of the sedimentary layer to make your case .

yes I am aware, and I used your theory to disprove splitrocks analysis.

 

[createdtoworship]

Something as physical as a WW flood would not require 'Faith' to believe because the evidence would be all around us.
'Faith' is only brought into play when there is no evidence, I would ask you to have 'Faith' in me when I had no evidence and was telling you lies.

and your evidence is what again?

a geologic column laid down tightly with little time for erosion?

specifically the sedimentary rock layers, not necessarily the geologic column in it's entirety but maybe so.

more info here:
http://creation.com/flat-gaps

 

[CabVet]

more info here:
Flat gaps

This is literally laughable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is literally laughable.

Very much so. I debated this with another creationist elsewhere. He complained that the relief of erosion was not enough. He thought that you out to see similar erosion in a low relief area as you see in a high relief area like the Grand Canyon. He just could not grasp the fact that in a very low relief area that the erosion you would see would be governed by the local low relief. In other words he expected the same sort of erosion that you would see in Fargo North Dakota as you see at the Grand Canyon.

Such an inability to reason logically is immune to logic.

 

[EveryTime]

This is literally laughable.

In my opinion it is anything but laughable I think it's downright damaging.

 

[EveryTime]

and your evidence is what again?

a geologic column laid down tightly with little time for erosion?

specifically the sedimentary rock layers, not necessarily the geologic column in it's entirety but maybe so.

more info here:
Flat gaps

Gradyll do yourself a favour and try looking at sites other than creationist sites, you are not doing yourself any favours.

If you wanted your house electrics fixed would you call in a plumber? would you go to a car mechanic to have a tooth pulled? No?
then why are you getting your geological information from religious nuts?

 

[createdtoworship]

Gradyll do yourself a favour and try looking at sites other than creationist sites, you are not doing yourself any favours.

If you wanted your house electrics fixed would you call in a plumber? would you go to a car mechanic to have a tooth pulled? No?
then why are you getting your geological information from religious nuts?

well this is an adhominem fallacy.

do you have any facts to backup your fallacies?