Scientific proof of flood.

Girl_4_God · Jul 24, 2005

troodon said:
Because He has given us the opportunity to live life.

How did he give you the opportunity to live life if he didn't make you or the world you live in?

Jenny

A4C · Jul 24, 2005

duordi said:
Scientific proof of flood.

Here is an overview of my assumptions and conclusions.

A picture is attached at the bottom

A large body of water that is decreasing in height will cause this erosion by wave action.

Erosion removes material based on its makeup at the location of the water surface wave action.

The surface water does most of the work and erosion at a level will depend on how long the water surface remained there.

As the water level recedes the surface water waves undercut the edges of the structure.

If the structure is capable of supporting its new form it may be a vertical cliff or even have a large top on a slender column.

Because the structure above the water level is not affected by water wave action, it may remain, being only affected by winds and rain.

Also the striking by waves causes tunnels to form if the surface remains at one level.

The wave will force itself into any holes that develop causing an impact at the back of the opening removing loose material at the end of the tunnel.

Tunnels require fairly large waves and indicate a large body of water.

The water must recede quickly enough to prevent the structure from being leveled at the water line.

Greater erosion at the bottom of a structure indicates that the water level receded slower at the bottom then at the top as the water was able to remove more material.

In erosion from wind and rain there is no intensification of erosion at a horizontal line

Intensive erosion at the base of a structure can also be caused by the material type.

If erosion layers are caused by material type, then where rock layers that are not level the erosion line would be sloped.

If the rock layers and the erosion line differ it is obviously a water line erosion.

Erosion caused by material differences does not cause extremely smooth erosion lines while water erosion lines are very smooth as they can cut into very hard rock.

The harder the rock the smoother and more defined a water cut is which can develop a polished appearance.

Wind and rain can of course obscure the smoothness of a water line and inspection inside caves is more reliable.

In water erosion all objects at a specific level would erode in a similar manner regardless of what they were made of and so another peak would have the same indications of water level progress distance.

In other words if one peak indicates a rapid 5' drop other structures in the area will also indicate the same condition as the water drop is not dependent on the material of the structure.

Different material types may cause the volume of material removed to be different.

The picture you have shown has a water line which can be seen pausing at several heights.

Tunneling is apparent but no grain in the stone is visible from this distance.

The water undercut is clearly visible on several of the columns.

Judging by the picture upper right the water level must have been fairly high.

Hmm... Looks like the top water line shown at the right would cover just about everything.

Drilling samples, or cutting the rock to expose its interior may give additional evidence that the rock properties do not change with the erosion depth but a visual inspection is adequate to indicate the conditions of formation.

Duane

I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this pic

Now if you also consider that the sedement that was layed down in the layers was not hardened when eroded by a massive amount of receeding flood water over a short time together with some subsequent erosion by wind and rain over the past 4500 years you will find it difficult as I do to accept any other explanation for the formations

notto · Jul 24, 2005

A4C said:
I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this pic

Now if you also consider that the sedement that was layed down in the layers was not hardened when eroded by a massive amount of receeding flood water over a short time together with some subsequent erosion by wind and rain over the past 4500 years you will find it difficult as I do to accept any other explanation for the formations

More magic mud!! How did it turn to rock without being subjected to heat or pressure? Why don't we see mud turning to rock today?

A4C · Jul 24, 2005

notto said:
More magic mud!! How did it turn to rock without being subjected to heat or pressure? Why don't we see mud turning to rock today?

Put some mud inside some more mud and leave it in the sun for 4500 years and I am pretty sure it will turn to rock (subject to a scientific investigation of course)

Incidentally I believe that some experimentation has been done on the formation of rock but because it reveals substantiation for the flood model the results have "mysteriously" been suppressed

MartinM · Jul 24, 2005

A4C said:
Put some mud inside some more mud and leave it in the sun for 4500 years and I am pretty sure it will turn to rock (subject to a scientific investigation of course)

Think you'll find it'll be vapourised in an instant, actually.

Edit: Never mind. Took you too literally there.

GodsSamus · Jul 24, 2005

Ledifni said:
I don't understand how you think all this proves the Flood. You're arguing that the Grand Canyon must have been caused by water erosion -- but we know that. No reputable scientist argues that something other than water erosion was the primary force that shaped the Grand Canyon. But the water that did this was the Colorado River, not a global flood.

Aren't you ASSUMING that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon? Evolutionists now believe neo-catastrophism, which says a local flood carved the big hole in the ground.

A4C · Jul 24, 2005

MartinM said:
Think you'll find it'll be vapourised in an instant, actually.

Edit: Never mind. Took you too literally there.

Vapourised ? You mean that the mud within the mud turns to a vapour ? Interesting. Please explain how this happens

MartinM · Jul 24, 2005

A4C said:
Vapourised ? You mean that the mud within the mud turns to a vapour ? Interesting. Please explain how this happens

You obviously saw the edit, because you quoted it...why did you ignore it?

A4C · Jul 24, 2005

GodsSamus said:
Aren't you ASSUMING that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon? Evolutionists now believe neo-catastrophism, which says a local flood carved the big hole in the ground.

There is only one way that a flood could possibly have carved the Grand Canyon - and that is that the same flood laid down the sediment that it was cut out of as the flood water receeded. And there is only one type of flood that could have done that - A MASSIVE one that would cover the whole world. Might I suggest the Flood of Noah as recorded in the Bible meets these requirements.

A4C · Jul 25, 2005

notto said:
More magic mud!! How did it turn to rock without being subjected to heat or pressure? Why don't we see mud turning to rock today?

Isn't that we are doing at Mt St Helens?

Lord Emsworth · Jul 25, 2005

A4C said:
I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this pic

Now if you also consider that the sedement that was layed down in the layers was not hardened when eroded by a massive amount of receeding flood water over a short time together with some subsequent erosion by wind and rain over the past 4500 years you will find it difficult as I do to accept any other explanation for the formations

Excuse me, I may not have been paying attention, but where did you say this massive amount of water receeded to in the short time?

notto · Jul 25, 2005

A4C said:
Isn't that we are doing at Mt St Helens?

Nope. There is no new sedimentary rock at Mount Saint Helens. You can read the USGS report and several creationists sources that show that no new sedimentary rock was created there. There are still problems with heavy sedimentation in rivers and streams there because of unlithified sediment being eroded away even today. It won't turn to rock until it is under the influence of heat and pressure. The type of rock in these pictures is unlike any rock that will ever be formed from the Mount Saint Helens sediment. Marine limestone and sandstone are very different in composition than what we find at Mount Saint Helens.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your poor argument and handwaving.

whatiswatanabe · Jul 25, 2005

duordi said:
Scientific proof of flood.

You means scnietific POOF of a flood. Did you take or read any geology or did you get all this from creationsists like Henry Morris? I'de like to know.

duordi said:
Here is an overview of my assumptions and conclusions.

A picture is attached at the bottom

A large body of water that is decreasing in height will cause this erosion by wave action.

No it won't. According to the bible all the waters receeded RAPIDLY. This would be typical of a river flood, but not the universal food claimed in the Bible. The universal flood of the bible is impossible for the simple reason that there is no where for the water to come from , nor is there anyplace for it to go. The Earth is not flat and it is not covered with a hard dome that lets in the rain. River floods typically deposit large amounts of mud. They aren't around long enough to erode sandstone. By the way where did thei sandstone come from? IF it was only 6000 years ago it still would be sand.

That is from rain erosion not shore erosion.

Please visit Santa Cruz California for examples of wave erosion NOW!

A4C · Jul 25, 2005

Lord Emsworth said:
Excuse me, I may not have been paying attention, but where did you say this massive amount of water receeded to in the short time?

Where did all the water go you ask. Well I can only give you an answer for that based on the knowledge that I have. (Some would say that doesn't amount to too much scientifically. ) Well if you combine what the Bible says with a bit of common sense perhaps the scientific stuff could be provided by others to complete the picture. The way I see it is that pre flood there was much more water below the earth's crust and a lot more dirt above it. Through siesmic activity and release of the sub-terrain and atmosheric moisture water covered the earth causing complete redistribution of the sediment in effect "plugging" the earth from receiving back the "original" water.
So post flood with an earth covered with sediment and water and globally re oriented with voids below earth, further seismic activity provides means by which water soaked sediment and plant matter to be literally "sucked" into the earth where there was once water. Some "evidence" of these events remains on earth today sometimes assumed to be meteor craters even tho the "craters" are not always circular and can be up to 200 miles across. Fossil fuel deposits are of course further flood evidence

notto · Jul 25, 2005

A4C said:
Fossil fuel deposits are of course further flood evidence

Except for the ones that show intact terrestrial features such as footprints, in place tree root systems, seasonal layering of clay sediment.

How can we tell a fossil fuel deposit that is flood evidence from one that is not? You have already said that the ones with footprints must be from before the flood? What does one look like that is evidence of the flood? What features would it have? How can we distinquish it from pre-flood and post-flood deposits? Can you point us to a specific fossil fuel deposit that was created by the flood and explain how you know it was and that it wasn't one of the pre-flood deposits?

(waits for adhoc reasoning and avoidance)

A4C · Jul 25, 2005

notto said:
(waits for adhoc reasoning and avoidance)

Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment

nvxplorer · Jul 25, 2005

The title of this thread is the height of irony and hypocricy.

I wonder how many times threads such as these were followed by threads decrying science.

Scientific Proof of Flood.
Science is Worthless and Flawed.
Science is a Religion.
Science Requires Faith!

notto · Jul 25, 2005

A4C said:
Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment

Right on que.

When approached with questions that actually get into the detail of the science and geology related to creationist adhoc reasoning, the details are avoided and the discussion is left.

This is standard for creationists. They don't want to discuss the specifics of things like rock type, chemical makeup of rocks, things such as clear characteristics that allow us to distinquish sink holes from meteor craters (which has been gone over in quite a bit of detail here when this claim came up the FIRST TIME).

Creationists like to stick to simple adhoc explanations that don't really pan out as a scientificly feasible model and one that is not self contradictory. All rock is the same except when they need it to be different (why did the runoff from mount saint helens supposedly turn to rock when the runoff from other floods doesn't?), the flood was devastating yet gentle (moved all of the sediment yet preserved delicate features and burrows), All sediment was laid down by the flood except for some of it (those coal deposits with footprints and tree roots).

This shows that they are really not interested in good honest discussion about science such as geology, physics, biology, etc. What they don't know, they don't have to rationalize away. Knowledge and actual discussion of the details of mechanisms and rational science is the enemy of what they cling to.

Goodbye A4C.

I'll see you next time you bring up

- Rapid rock formation at mount saint helens (which never been document to have actually taken place)

- No sediment on the east coast (which is simply false)

- Sinkholes mistake for craters (which can only be claimed if you are still avoiding the evidence you were shown last time you brought it up that shows that we can clearly tell the difference)

Perhaps the next time you bring these things up you would actually like to discuss the details of them instead of holding to false and simplistic notions of the concepts involved.

Grengor · Jul 25, 2005

notto said:
Right on que.

When approached with questions that actually get into the detail of the science and geology related to creationist adhoc reasoning, the details are avoided and the discussion is left.

This is standard for creationists. They don't want to discuss the specifics of things like rock type, chemical makeup of rocks, things such as clear characteristics that allow us to distinquish sink holes from meteor craters (which has been gone over in quite a bit of detail here when this claim came up the FIRST TIME).

Creationists like to stick to simple adhoc explanations that don't really pan out as a scientificly feasible model and one that is not self contradictory. All rock is the same except when they need it to be different (why did the runoff from mount saint helens supposedly turn to rock when the runoff from other floods doesn't?), the flood was devastating yet gentle (moved all of the sediment yet preserved delicate features and burrows), All sediment was laid down by the flood except for some of it (those coal deposits with footprints and tree roots).

This shows that they are really not interested in good honest discussion about science such as geology, physics, biology, etc. What they don't know, they don't have to rationalize away. Knowledge and actual discussion of the details of mechanisms and rational science is the enemy of what they cling to.

Goodbye A4C.

I'll see you next time you bring up

- Rapid rock formation at mount saint helens (which never been document to have actually taken place)

- No sediment on the east coast (which is simply false)

- Sinkholes mistake for craters (which can only be claimed if you are still avoiding the evidence you were shown last time you brought it up that shows that we can clearly tell the difference)

Perhaps the next time you bring these things up you would actually like to discuss the details of them instead of holding to false and simplistic notions of the concepts involved.

Oh like most would even understand you

.

Mechanical Bliss · Jul 26, 2005

A4C said:
Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment

notto is not guilty of "persistant harrassment" at any degree, so to claim that's so is just shameful on your part and completely diversionary because you can't back up your own claims.

He has pointed out that some of your statements are obviously false.

He has asked you very basic questions about what you claim is scientifically valid and what you claim invalidates modern geology (e.g., which strata represent this flood), and you never answer them because you apparently can't.

Basically you're threatened because you can't even defend your position even on the most superficial, honest, and coherent level and you're angry because people ask you softball questions that you should be able to answer if you knew what you're talking about. That's not our fault, so don't blame people like notto simply because your position is vacuous.

People ask easy questions, you don't answer. People refute your claims (e.g., rock at Mt. St. Helens, no sediments on the east coast of the U.S., meteorite craters are sinkholes), you don't answer only to bring them up again. The fault is squarely yours.

If you want to post nonsense without having it critically examined by people who clearly know more than you do about the relevant sciences, then post it in the creationist only section so people can blindly pat you on the back. But when you post stuff like this on an open forum, you should be expecting it to be critically examined instead of calling it "harrassment" which is a joke.

And meteorite craters are not "assumed" to be meteorite craters. But you should know this because it's been explained in detail for you in the past. Meteorite craters are concluded to be meteorite craters because they have identifying characteristics (hint: sinkholes don't have them, so you're wrong).

Scientific proof of flood.

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

GondolierAce

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

GondolierAce

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Legend

Active Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Senior Contributor

Legend

GrenAce

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Similar threads