Thin layer of silt proves flood

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, but it is not. One observed feature refutes flood believers claims:

Embedded meanders.

Click to expand...

Don't be sorry. Every argument has a "but what about....?" opposing view. I start from the point of view that God's word says that the waters covered the earth and that everyone on earth perished, apart from Noah. I've read two amazing books that go into depth (excuse the pun) about the flood. They agree in many points but not all. They are written by Christians who are scientists. They do not agree on what their observations mean. So I am not surprised when secular scientists disagree.

ananda said:

Thank you for sharing evidence which testifies for the truth of the Buddhist scriptures, which speak of global floods! "When the world is destroyed by water, the world of the Subhakinhas forms the limit to which the water rises. PSA.256."

Click to expand...

Just about every culture has a flood story in its culture. Just one of many bits of the puzzle that confirms God's word.

Aussie Pete said:

Just about every culture has a flood story in its culture. Just one of many bits of the puzzle that confirms God's word.

Click to expand...

Flood stories being a part of other cultures don't confirm God's word anymore than it confirms any other cultural stories about floods. Especially since the Noah's flood story (among other parts of Genesis) seems to have been borrowed from pre-existing stories.

ananda said:

Thank you for sharing evidence which testifies for the truth of the Buddhist scriptures, which speak of global floods! "When the world is destroyed by water, the world of the Subhakinhas forms the limit to which the water rises. PSA.256."

Click to expand...

I didn't know Buddha made public service announcements.

pitabread said:

Flood stories being a part of other cultures don't confirm God's word anymore than it confirms any other cultural stories about floods. Especially since the Noah's flood story (among other parts of Genesis) seems to have been borrowed from pre-existing stories.

Click to expand...

I rest my case.

Aussie Pete said:

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

So you accept that the story of Noah and the flood was borrowed from other stories? Interesting...

You also know that re-telling of stories doesn't necessarily make them true, yes?

Aussie Pete said:

Don't be sorry. Every argument has a "but what about....?" opposing view. I start from the point of view that God's word says that the waters covered the earth and that everyone on earth perished, apart from Noah. I've read two amazing books that go into depth (excuse the pun) about the flood. They agree in many points but not all. They are written by Christians who are scientists. They do not agree on what their observations mean. So I am not surprised when secular scientists disagree.

Click to expand...

If one can face facts and be honest one would have to admit that there was no global flood. All of the scientific evidence tells us this. It is not just one piece of scientific evidence that tells us this it is all of them.

Just about every culture has a flood story in its culture. Just one of many bits of the puzzle that confirms God's word.

Click to expand...

So what? And no, that goes against the Bible tale. One needs to look at more than just the fact that many, but not all, have a flood myth. In fact we know where the Bible flood myth came from and when it was written.

Aussie Pete said:

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know. You do not understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to discuss it?

Aussie Pete said:

Don't be sorry. Every argument has a "but what about....?" opposing view.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, in cases of fact, one view is right, and all others are wrong. The experts hashed out the arguments about a global flood centuries ago. The global flood was not supported by the evidence, and it has dropped out of serious consideration.

pitabread said:

So you accept that the story of Noah and the flood was borrowed from other stories? Interesting...

You also know that re-telling of stories doesn't necessarily make them true, yes?

Click to expand...

That is not what I said. Eye witness accounts are not myths, neither are they borrowed.

essentialsaltes said:

Nevertheless, in cases of fact, one view is right, and all others are wrong. The experts hashed out the arguments about a global flood centuries ago. The global flood was not supported by the evidence, and it has dropped out of serious consideration.

Click to expand...

Your view is out of date. I have a book called "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb, published in 1961.

Henry Morris: "After graduating in 1939, Morris served as an hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939-1942).He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946, where he also wrote a short book, That You Might Believe (1946). Attempting to answer the claims of evolution, he found the works of Harry Rimmer in his book, Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, "which more than any other work convinced him 'once and for all that evolution was false.'" From 1946-1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950). In 1949, he joined the American Scientific Association as a correspondent in an attempt to change the views of the association.[9] In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957."

Dr Whitcomb was a theologian and responsible for the Biblical aspects of the book. In my view, this book blows away every argument against a world wide flood from a scientific point of view. I've never doubted the veracity of the Biblical account.

Aussie Pete said:

That is not what I said. Eye witness accounts are not myths, neither are they borrowed.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The Bible is not composed of "Eye witness accounts".

Your view is out of date. I have a book called "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb, published in 1961.

Click to expand...

Yes, classic comedy.

Henry Morris: "After graduating in 1939, Morris served as an hydraulic engineer working with the International Boundary and Water Commission (1939-1942).He returned to Rice, teaching civil engineering from 1942 until 1946, where he also wrote a short book, That You Might Believe (1946). Attempting to answer the claims of evolution, he found the works of Harry Rimmer in his book, Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, "which more than any other work convinced him 'once and for all that evolution was false.'" From 1946-1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he earned a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950). In 1949, he joined the American Scientific Association as a correspondent in an attempt to change the views of the association.[9] In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and served as the Acting Dean of Engineering in the fall of 1956. Morris then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University in 1957."

Dr Whitcomb was a theologian and responsible for the Biblical aspects of the book. In my view, this book blows away every argument against a world wide flood from a scientific point of view. I've never doubted the veracity of the Biblical account.

Click to expand...

Ah, then you have no education in the sciences. Once again, let's start with the scientific method and then move on to the concept of evidence. It does not take too much to see that Morris had no clue at all when it came to geology.

Even Morris with his higher education knew that what he was peddling nonsense. Real work in the sciences is done through peer review. A person with a PhD understands this. If he really believed that what he wrote was factual he would have tried to publish it in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. He did not do so because it would not have even got past the relatively low level of initial publication in such a journal. The next step after publication is that the public as a whole tests that concept to see if it is valid. He knew that his ideas were not valid. That is why he did not go through peer review.

Do you remember "cold fusion"?

Subduction Zone said:

What are you talking about? The Bible is not composed of "Eye witness accounts".



Yes, classic comedy.



Ah, then you have no education in the sciences. Once again, let's start with the scientific method and then move on to the concept of evidence. It does not take too much to see that Morris had no clue at all when it came to geology.

Even Morris with his higher education knew that what he was peddling nonsense. Real work in the sciences is done through peer review. A person with a PhD understands this. If he really believed that what he wrote was factual he would have tried to publish it in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. He did not do so because it would not have even got past the relatively low level of initial publication in such a journal. The next step after publication is that the public as a whole tests that concept to see if it is valid. He knew that his ideas were not valid. That is why he did not go through peer review.

Do you remember "cold fusion"?

Click to expand...

You will find out the truth one day. Have you read the book? No, I am not a scientist. I am not stupid either. I saw the flaws in evolutionary theory while I was a child. I've seen and read nothing to suggest that evolution is correct since.

Morris was not publishing a scientific paper. Your libellous aspersion on Dr Morris's character is unwarranted. To disagree is one thing, to call him a liar is something else entirely.

Aussie Pete said:

You will find out the truth one day. Have you read the book? No, I am not a scientist. I am not stupid either. I saw the flaws in evolutionary theory while I was a child. I've seen and read nothing to suggest that evolution is correct since.

Morris was not publishing a scientific paper. Your libellous aspersion on Dr Morris's character is unwarranted. To disagree is one thing, to call him a liar is something else entirely.

Click to expand...

Denying physical reality because of a religious belief is bad science and bad theology.

greatcloudlives said:

The flood found in the Bible has evidence in the gelogic record. There is a thin layer of silt corresponding to the flood found in the Bible in the Mideast part of the world.

Click to expand...

Citation for this worldwide layer of silt?

VirOptimus said:

Denying physical reality because of a religious belief is bad science and bad theology.

Click to expand...

I won't go further into this discussion because it will get me in trouble with the moderators.

Aussie Pete said:

The Grand Canyon is one of the best arguments for the global flood.

Click to expand...

The Grand Canyon is far better explained by small amounts of water over a very long time rather than a large amount of water in a short time.

Aussie Pete said:

I won't go further into this discussion because it will get me in trouble with the moderators.

Click to expand...

That happens when ones position is ignorant.

Kylie said:

The Grand Canyon is far better explained by small amounts of water over a very long time rather than a large amount of water in a short time.

Click to expand...

Says who? Why? There is perfectly reasonable evidence to suggest that it happened very quickly. Dr Walt Brown has demonstrated silt layering that indicates that, and there was similar effect after the terrible Mt St Helens volcano eruption. I can agree wholeheartedly with the rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon theory.

I'll not discuss this issue with you further. It's a total waste of time.

Aussie Pete said:

You will find out the truth one day. Have you read the book? No, I am not a scientist. I am not stupid either. I saw the flaws in evolutionary theory while I was a child. I've seen and read nothing to suggest that evolution is correct since.

Morris was not publishing a scientific paper. Your libellous aspersion on Dr Morris's character is unwarranted. To disagree is one thing, to call him a liar is something else entirely.

Click to expand...

Why would I need to? The burden of proof is upon Morris and he avoided the proper channels to prove his claims. Real scientists do not do that.

And please, don't claim that you saw the flaws in evolutionary theory, that is a falsehood. It may not be a lie since you may not have an intention to deceive but there is no doubt that it is a falsehood.

It is obvious to all that you do not understand the sciences. That can be corrected through education. Why are you afraid to even discuss the basics of science? Is it because deep down you know that you are wrong?

Once again, let's go over the basics first. We don't even need to bring up evolution.

EDIT: And Morris was either an idiot or a liar. Perhaps a bit of both. Why do you think that I offer to go over the basics with you? If you understood the basics of science you could see their errors for yourself. You do not lack the intelligence to do so you only lack the education. It is strange that creationists are so often so very afraid to even try to learn.

Aussie Pete said:

Says who? Why? There is perfectly reasonable evidence to suggest that it happened very quickly. Dr Walt Brown has demonstrated silt layering that indicates that, and there was similar effect after the terrible Mt St Helens volcano eruption. I can agree wholeheartedly with the rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon theory.

Click to expand...

Ah, the creationist Dr Walt Brown who holds a degree in mechanical engineering, not geology or any other relevant field?

Also, can you show any structures similar to the Grand Canyon that were formed by the Mount St Helens eruption?

I'll not discuss this issue with you further. It's a total waste of time.

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion based on evidence. If you don't feel you can do the same, that's up to you.

Aussie Pete said:

Says who? Why? There is perfectly reasonable evidence to suggest that it happened very quickly. Dr Walt Brown has demonstrated silt layering that indicates that, and there was similar effect after the terrible Mt St Helens volcano eruption. I can agree wholeheartedly with the rapid erosion of the Grand Canyon theory.

I'll not discuss this issue with you further. It's a total waste of time.

Click to expand...

No, there really is not. I am not sure what is included in the education of a hydraulic engineer, but even he should have known that he is wrong. Fast moving water does not cut curving courses. To do that one needs relatively slow moving waters. Look at the Mississippi. At its headwaters and roughly two thirds of the way down to the Gulf of Mexico it flows in a rather straight line. It is not until the lower third where the slope is much lower and the stream slows down that it begins to meander. What we see in the Grand Canyon often are incised or embedded meanders. How they are formed is well understood. Flood believers cannot come up with a reasonable explanation of them. This is a meander to a tributary to the Colorado. It is extremely obvious to the trained eye that it had to form slowly over millions of years:



Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia

If you are using a desktop you can click on the image in the link and see if full screen. Click on it again and it is magnified even more.

EDIT: Correction, mechanical and not hydraulic engineer. Thanks to @Kylie I realized that I conflated him with Morris.