Where does the "Flood" start?

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

That's an assumption, and not a very good one either. You ought to learn a little more about a theory before bashing it. I'm not saying it doesn't have any problems but this is not one of them. There are a number of ways this particular problem could have been solved. I suggest you read up on them. Btw, I'm not going to do your research for you.

  Then we'll just consider you talking out of your butt, mkay? If you can't reference it, you're going to be assumed wrong. It's not a bad assumption with you, and you need to learn to back up your words.

  So, as I was pointing out, Walter's model has a huge heat problem.

No, that's another assumption, especially not true for YEC.

  What? More magic water? More magic rock? Was it all pumice? Are you telling me the weight of rock in Walter's theory wouldn't have pushed the water upwards from day 1?

 

npetreley · Jun 26, 2002

Where does the "Flood" start?

It started in what is now Bayonne, New Jersey. Okay? Satisfied?

Ask a silly question...

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  What strata.

npetreley · Jun 26, 2002

What strata.

Somewhere on G Street. (Strata G.)

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  What a suprise. Nick has nothing to contribute.

  What next? He'll make a claim, and then refuse to back it up?

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Actually most fossils are ... rarely made under ordinary conditions (except on sea-beds...)

Jerry, i don't want to nit-pick, but it's very unlikely you'll find a fossil on a seabed. Maybe before the flood it did happen, but today when an animal dies and settles to the ocean floor, it is ripped apart by scavenging creatures. Every bone is licked clean, and any remains dissipate before you can get enough sediment to cover the body.

The only way would be a catastrophe in which lots of dirt is kicked up quickly. That would work best to bury the remains. But for a fossil, you also need flowing water with some minerals to let the bones fossilize.

Anyway, i could be partly wrong, but my main idea seems fine. A fossil is hard to make underwater today.

God bless you.

 

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
The flood was not world wide but local to where ever Noah lived...

(Sigh...) I trust you believe in the Bible, Lewis. Now wouldn't it be easier for God to tell Noah to move somewhere, instead of spending 100 years building the Ark? And how would a local flood kill all of humankind?

Genesis 20:7 says, "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." It doesn't convince me that this was a "local" flood.

But feel free to tell me what you think.

Alex

trubelieverinjc · Jun 27, 2002

Here is some proof of a global flood just as the bible says.

1.Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

2.The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

3.Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

4.Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

5.The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8). There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

I know this doesn't answer all of you question, but I hope this helps. If I find out more information on the subject I will post.

your brother in Christ,
Anthony

  :idea:

npetreley · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by trubelieverinjc

3.Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

Relax, evolutionists, I've read enough talkorigins now that I can handle this one.

The clams climbed Mount Everest when they had legs and lungs, but once they made it to the top, they simply hung out there and stopped using their legs.  There's so little oxygen up there they stopped using their lungs, too.  Evolution took over and they lost their lungs and legs for lack of use like the salamander lost the use of its eyes in the dark.  That cylindrical thingy inside the shell of a clam is one of the vestigal clam legs. Unfortunately, none of the legged, lunged clams are recorded in the fossil record, but we can extrapolate from the existing record that they must have existed.  It's a punk eek thing.  If you were simply educated enough and read enough talkorigins articles you'd know all this. 

alexgb00 · Jun 27, 2002

That's right, Nick. The clams all shimmied up the mountain!

Can you believe, some people still believe darwinism is a viable theory? Those die hard fans. More like blind followers.

Anthony!

May God bless you, man. You're an encouragement to us all. I'll pray for you. PM me.

God bless you, my brothers.

Alex

trubelieverinjc · Jun 27, 2002

Thanks Alex for the blessing and prayers. Sorry I ani't got around to PM you. I still ani't figured out how everything works here on Christian Forums.
But yes how in the world can some believe in Darwinism? It's beyond my conception. In fact it would seem to me easier in the thinking, to believe in a creator than not. All I got to say is one day, we all we know. And I pray that day is soon!!!

Your Brother in Christ,
Anthony

 

Jerry Smith · Jun 27, 2002

Originally posted by alexgb00

Jerry, i don't want to nit-pick, but it's very unlikely you'll find a fossil on a seabed.

Your comments are fair and accurate, but:

Actually marine fossils in ancient sea-beds are the most abundant type, but I agree that their deposition is still "very unlikely". My parenthetical remark was meant to underline the fact that relative to terrestrial fossilization, undersea fossilization is more likely to take place under normal conditions.

LewisWildermuth · Jun 27, 2002

(Sigh...) I trust you believe in the Bible, Lewis. Now wouldn't it be easier for God to tell Noah to move somewhere, instead of spending 100 years building the Ark? And how would a local flood kill all of humankind?

Genesis 20:7 says, "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." It doesn't convince me that this was a "local" flood.

But feel free to tell me what you think.

Alex

Why can it not be looked upon as a moralistic tail?

And the moral of the day is: "Even if it looks like everything is ending keep your belief."

trubelieverinjc · Jun 27, 2002

quote/Actually marine fossils in ancient sea-beds are the most abundant type, but I agree that their deposition is still "very unlikely". My parenthetical remark was meant to underline the fact that relative to terrestrial fossilization, undersea fossilization is more likely to take place under normal conditions./quote

Yes, that is true, Ancient sea-beds are the most abundant type of fossilization. But if you take the bible literally, which says "all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." If taken literally imagine water fallen fast and furious from the sky, which we know can rapidly rise and also waters spurring up from under the ground, like the fountains at Yellowstone. With water falling from the sky and at the same time rapidly rising from below. This would create an under water tornado effect. Which would rapidly undertake everything as the bible says. This would create layers of soil,etc., which when settled could almost instantly cover up these fossil and save them from the fish and things from the sea. So under this anomaly, the fossil's could have easily fossilized under the sea without any problems.

Your brother in Christ,

Anthony

 

Jerry Smith · Jun 27, 2002

trubeliever,

There are actually a lot of problems with Global flood models, but none in your post. It is concievable that, if the many other problems were solved, and if the pattern of deposition of seabed fossils was homogeneous or attributable to the natural impact of a single catastrophic event, then this model would serve a better answer to the greater rate of preservation of marine fossils than terrestrial ones. Unfortunately, the problems with a recent Global Flood model are too enormous to catalog, and the patterns we find in the marine fossil record mirror the patterns we find in the terrestrial fossil record: only a large number of burials spread over a long period of time can adequately explain them.

LewisWildermuth · Jun 27, 2002

1.Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.

Not true, there are plenty of sedimentary rocks that do not need a flood to form.

Plenty of sandstone that we find was formed out of sand dunes in a desert.
" A spectacular change occurred in the Jurassic, when colossal sand dunes formed the Navajo Sandstone, covering much of the interior West. Centered in Utah, this ancient desert has produced some of the state's most beautiful scenery in Zion National Park and Glen Canyon. In Dinosaur, Navajo Sandstone is found on the road to Split Mountain, the Elephant Toes on the Cub Creek Road, and the Cathedral in Jones Hole Canyon. The Navajo sand dunes supported some life; small intermittent lakes were present; but the region was largely a vast wasteland of dunes - an ancient desert turned to stone." From:http://proposeddinosaurnatlpark.virtualave.net/geology.html

While most sedimentary rock is formed atleast partialy in water(we do find mud puddles and riverbanks turned to stone by burrial. Not all sedumentary rock is formed under water. There are many soil plains in the geologic columb.

2.The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

Because it was ocean floor before India plowed into Asia. Plate tectonics...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html

3.Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

4.Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

Bent rock layers are better explained by plate tectonics.

Fossil graveyards are not best explained by a biblical global flood. Local floods sure, but no global flood is needed.

Poly-strata fosils are no problem, unlike what anti-evolutionists say not all rock layers form slowly.

5.The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8). There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

If all the mountains and valleys were created at the same time why are there vast differences in erosion? Why are the Appilacheans so worn down while the Rockies not so?

I know this doesn't answer all of you question, but I hope this helps. If I find out more information on the subject I will post.

your brother in Christ,
Anthony
[/quote]

npetreley · Jun 27, 2002

Why can it not be looked upon as a moralistic tail? (sic)

There you go! I think you've discovered the origin of our vestigal tailbone.

npetreley · Jun 27, 2002

In case anyone was interested:

Main Entry: 1sed·i·ment
Pronunciation: 'se-d&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin sedimentum settling, from sedEre to sit, sink down
Date: 1547
1 : the matter that settles to the bottom of a liquid
2 : material deposited by water, wind, or glaciers

trubelieverinjc · Jun 27, 2002

Thanks Nick my point exactly. His theories aren't backed up. Even the dictionary doesn't back up the idea. I guess I better go do my genealogy and find out which ape I was from. Hopefully it was the Mountain Gorilla, I like those

AV1611VET · Aug 2, 2015

LewisWildermuth said:
If there was a world wide flood we should be able to find evidence of it in the rocks layed down by it.

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?

Where does the "Flood" start?

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

pumpkin sailor

Untitled One

Senior Member

Senior Member

John 3:16

pumpkin sailor

Senior Member

John 3:16

Fish out of water

Senior Veteran

John 3:16

Fish out of water

Senior Veteran

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

John 3:16

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads