Thin layer of silt proves flood

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ah, Henry Morris. The PhD who helped form the Creation Research Society. The same society that required its members to accept these statements of belief, among others:
  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
  2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
  3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

Given the above, Morris et al aren't practicing the science. In fact, they've reversed the scientific method (and in doing so, completely perverted it). They put the conclusions first, and then torture or ignore the available evidence and contort their own thinking in order to justify their a priori assumptions.

When I wrote my thesis, I was advised to operation on the assumptions that everything I was writing was wrong, and that the only conclusions which were defensible were those that were arrived at via a concordance of multiple lines of evidence. Even so, review was combative and forced me to extensively alter several key sections and conclusions.

I've read Morris, and his shtick is PAINFUL. Paragraph after paragraph, its the same:

A) Reference a biblical story or verse. B) Make an unreferenced statement of 'fact' that what occurred in the text happens (or happened) in reality. C) Follow this with a direct quote of biblical text. D) Double down on previous 'fact'. E) Assert that even if this fact didn't actually happen, it doesn't matter, because God can do anything and therefore the bible is inerrant.

Here's Morris in 'The Bible and Modern Science' and how he accounts for the Jonah and the whale narrative:

The story of Jonah and the whale has been difficult also for many to believe. It was formerly claimed that no whale possessed a gullet large enough to admit a man, for example. However, it is now known that there is at least one whale, the sperm whale, which inhabits the Mediterranean, which is quite capable of swallowing a much larger object than a man. There are also a number of other fish with sufficiently large gullets, and it may be significant that the Bible account speaks of a "great fish," "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17).

There have even been a number of accounts, some of them well authenticated, of men in modern times having been swallowed by the sperm whale or some other sea monster, and then later being rescued alive. However, if necessary, there is no reason for us to refuse to believe in an actual miraculous intervention by GOD in the preservation of Jonah's life. It is even possible that Jonah actually died and was then restored to life by God, as Lazarus and others recorded in Scripture. The LORD JESUS (Matthew 12:40) accepted the story of Jonah as authentic history, and even used it as a type or symbol of His own coming death and resurrection.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
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'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.
I've been dealing with atheists for nearly 50 years as a Christian. I lived with one for 15 years (my father). I know that I'm wasting my time, but here goes.
The OP referred to sedimentary layers. They are obvious in the Grand Canyon. I've been there, it is beyond my ability to describe it.
The evolutionist view is that the layers were formed over millions and millions of years as the Colorado eroded the plateau. There are many obvious objections to this idea, not the least being why the canyon is so narrow. There are also places where the river would have had to run uphill until a path was cut. Now that would be interesting to say the least.

The sedimentary layers show no sign of erosion. They are remarkably intact, hardly likely if they had been exposed the elements for a vast amount of time. If you get a transparent container (a fish tank will do), mix different kinds of sands, soil etc in water, and allow it settle, you will find that layers are formed.

The flood would most certainly have mixed the rapidly eroded rock of the Grand Canyon, which then settled as the flood subsided as it ran into the ocean.

This settling process was observed after the Mt St Helens eruption. It demonstrates that sediment layers can form in an extremely short time period. This has been demonstrated on a very small scale but Mt St Helens is obviously very large.

Mt St Helens shows that the time-spans evolutionists insist on are not essential for sediment formation. The lack of erosion implies that the sediment layers were formed very quickly, not over millions of years.

Is this actually what happened? I don't know for sure. And no evolutionist was there to observe the formation of the Grand Canyon either. In my view, the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly as a result of the flood makes sense. The evolutionist view makes little sensed to me.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The OP referred to sedimentary layers. They are obvious in the Grand Canyon. I've been there, it is beyond my ability to describe it.

I haven't been there, but I have seen photos, and I agree, there are obvious layers in the Grand Canyon.

The evolutionist view is that the layers were formed over millions and millions of years as the Colorado eroded the plateau. There are many obvious objections to this idea, not the least being why the canyon is so narrow.

Could you explain why the canyon being narrow is a problem to the evolutionist view?

There are also places where the river would have had to run uphill until a path was cut. Now that would be interesting to say the least.

Could you provide an example of one of these areas?

The sedimentary layers show no sign of erosion. They are remarkably intact, hardly likely if they had been exposed the elements for a vast amount of time. If you get a transparent container (a fish tank will do), mix different kinds of sands, soil etc in water, and allow it settle, you will find that layers are formed.

If all we see are layers, how exactly would erosion look? Can you give an example and comparison between layers that have been eroded and those that have not?

The flood would most certainly have mixed the rapidly eroded rock of the Grand Canyon, which then settled as the flood subsided as it ran into the ocean.

This settling process was observed after the Mt St Helens eruption. It demonstrates that sediment layers can form in an extremely short time period. This has been demonstrated on a very small scale but Mt St Helens is obviously very large.

Mt St Helens shows that the time-spans evolutionists insist on are not essential for sediment formation. The lack of erosion implies that the sediment layers were formed very quickly, not over millions of years.

Ah, but we're not just talking about how quickly the layers can form, but also how quickly the river can cut through those layers.

Also, the layers of the Grand Canyon have been dated using radiometric methods, and they give results consist with ages in the millions of years.

Telling Time at Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Also, your argument that the different materials would have been mixed and then settled out suggests that such settling would have resulted in layers sorted by the size of the particles, with layers made up of larger particles being found near the bottom and those made up of smaller particles being found near the top. Can you demonstrate that this is the order in which the layers in the Grand Canyon are actually found?

Is this actually what happened? I don't know for sure. And no evolutionist was there to observe the formation of the Grand Canyon either. In my view, the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly as a result of the flood makes sense. The evolutionist view makes little sensed to me.

How do you explain the meandering river of the Grand Canyon as presented by Subduction Zone in post 40? Surely a rushed event with fast moving water would be incapable of producing features like that. Can you propose a method by which these features could have formed that is consistent with your claims of rapid formation?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I've been dealing with atheists for nearly 50 years as a Christian. I lived with one for 15 years (my father). I know that I'm wasting my time, but here goes.
The OP referred to sedimentary layers. They are obvious in the Grand Canyon. I've been there, it is beyond my ability to describe it.
The evolutionist view is that the layers were formed over millions and millions of years as the Colorado eroded the plateau. There are many obvious objections to this idea, not the least being why the canyon is so narrow. There are also places where the river would have had to run uphill until a path was cut. Now that would be interesting to say the least.

Correction, it is the scientific view that it took millions of years for the canyon to form. That view is supported by scientific evidence. Geology predates the theory of evolution and it was Christian geologists that first refuted the global flood myth. It has nothing to do with evolution.

And please, no strawman arguments. That is a dishonest debating technique. Scientists have never claimed that the river flowed uphill.

The sedimentary layers show no sign of erosion. They are remarkably intact, hardly likely if they had been exposed the elements for a vast amount of time. If you get a transparent container (a fish tank will do), mix different kinds of sands, soil etc in water, and allow it settle, you will find that layers are formed.

This makes no sense at all. Can you try again please. I don't know about you, but I would think that the Grand Canyon is a pretty big sign of erosion.

The flood would most certainly have mixed the rapidly eroded rock of the Grand Canyon, which then settled as the flood subsided as it ran into the ocean.

This settling process was observed after the Mt St Helens eruption. It demonstrates that sediment layers can form in an extremely short time period. This has been demonstrated on a very small scale but Mt St Helens is obviously very large.

Not even close. Some layers can form quickky. And they are very easily identified. That does not mean that all layers can form rapidly. This is a Black and White fallacy on your part.

Mt St Helens shows that the time-spans evolutionists insist on are not essential for sediment formation. The lack of erosion implies that the sediment layers were formed very quickly, not over millions of years.

Is this actually what happened? I don't know for sure. And no evolutionist was there to observe the formation of the Grand Canyon either. In my view, the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly as a result of the flood makes sense. The evolutionist view makes little sensed to me.
Again, some layers, such as volcanic ash or conglomerates can be deposited quickly, that does not mean that all layers form quickly. Some have to form very very slowly. Chalk beds for example.

Since you don't appear to want to learn the basics could you at least try to debate properly? Bring up one point at a time and see if you can support it or if others can refute it. A Gish Gallop is another dishonest debating technique that Christians should try to avoid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jadis40
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I've said my bit. If you are serious, there are answers. Just not from me. I have other priorities. I've researched this to my own satisfaction.
You have not done any research. You only looked for lame excuses to believe.

Think about it. You have cited authors that are a joke in the world of science. Meanwhile relying on a device that could never have been built without the scientific method. Doesn't that seem to be just a little odd to you? You are relying on the reality that you deny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jadis40
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I've been dealing with atheists for nearly 50 years as a Christian. I lived with one for 15 years (my father). I know that I'm wasting my time, but here goes.
The OP referred to sedimentary layers. They are obvious in the Grand Canyon. I've been there, it is beyond my ability to describe it.
The evolutionist view is that the layers were formed over millions and millions of years as the Colorado eroded the plateau. There are many obvious objections to this idea, not the least being why the canyon is so narrow. There are also places where the river would have had to run uphill until a path was cut. Now that would be interesting to say the least.

The sedimentary layers show no sign of erosion. They are remarkably intact, hardly likely if they had been exposed the elements for a vast amount of time. If you get a transparent container (a fish tank will do), mix different kinds of sands, soil etc in water, and allow it settle, you will find that layers are formed.

The flood would most certainly have mixed the rapidly eroded rock of the Grand Canyon, which then settled as the flood subsided as it ran into the ocean.

This settling process was observed after the Mt St Helens eruption. It demonstrates that sediment layers can form in an extremely short time period. This has been demonstrated on a very small scale but Mt St Helens is obviously very large.

Mt St Helens shows that the time-spans evolutionists insist on are not essential for sediment formation. The lack of erosion implies that the sediment layers were formed very quickly, not over millions of years.

Is this actually what happened? I don't know for sure. And no evolutionist was there to observe the formation of the Grand Canyon either. In my view, the theory that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly as a result of the flood makes sense. The evolutionist view makes little sensed to me.

:scratch: Have you heard of trace fossils?
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I've said my bit. If you are serious, there are answers. Just not from me. I have other priorities. I've researched this to my own satisfaction.

And by awesome coincidence your ”research” aligned perfectly with your religious belief.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
And by awesome coincidence your ”research” aligned perfectly with your religious belief.
What else would you expect when the "research" evidently consisted of reading a book by Steve Austin?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The sedimentary layers show no sign of erosion. They are remarkably intact, hardly likely if they had been exposed the elements for a vast amount of time. If you get a transparent container (a fish tank will do), mix different kinds of sands, soil etc in water, and allow it settle, you will find that layers are formed.
Hmm, let's see an example of someone doing exactly that: YouTube video.

The same video embedded (relevant section starting at 1 minute 49 seconds):
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,822
36,127
Los Angeles Area
✟820,765.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
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.

This really proves my point.

Yes, you are right in saying (post #21) that 'Every argument has a "but what about....?" opposing view.'

But I'm right in saying (post #28) that some of those arguments are lousy and are no longer seriously considered.

It's kind of funny you accusing me of having a view that is out of date. Morris and Whitcomb published almost 60 years ago and their argument has gone nowhere. There is a truth to the matter, and the existence of fringe opinions doesn't change anything.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That is not what I said. Eye witness accounts are not myths, neither are they borrowed.

There is no evidence that any of these stories are eye-witness accounts. Furthermore, claiming they are eye witness accounts does not in itself give them any validity.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jadis40
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
In my view, this book blows away every argument against a world wide flood from a scientific point of view.

If flood geology is so amazing, why haven't industries dependent on geological understanding (e.g. mining, oil&gas, etc) adopted flood geology models instead of conventional geology?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Jadis40
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I've said my bit. If you are serious, there are answers. Just not from me. I have other priorities. I've researched this to my own satisfaction.

Those who are serious (e.g. the world's geologists) have already researched this far more than you have. There is a reason why nobody accepts a world-wide flood on the basis of geology. The only people who think the world was flooded as per the Biblical account are those whose religious beliefs depend on it.

Why do you think that is the case? Why don't the rest of the world's geologists agree with the creationist view of flood geology?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Ah, Henry Morris. The PhD who helped form the Creation Research Society. The same society that required its members to accept these statements of belief, among others:
  1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
  2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
  3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

Given the above, Morris et al aren't practicing the science. In fact, they've reversed the scientific method (and in doing so, completely perverted it). They put the conclusions first, and then torture or ignore the available evidence and contort their own thinking in order to justify their a priori assumptions.

When I wrote my thesis, I was advised to operation on the assumptions that everything I was writing was wrong, and that the only conclusions which were defensible were those that were arrived at via a concordance of multiple lines of evidence. Even so, review was combative and forced me to extensively alter several key sections and conclusions.

I've read Morris, and his shtick is PAINFUL. Paragraph after paragraph, its the same:

A) Reference a biblical story or verse. B) Make an unreferenced statement of 'fact' that what occurred in the text happens (or happened) in reality. C) Follow this with a direct quote of biblical text. D) Double down on previous 'fact'. E) Assert that even if this fact didn't actually happen, it doesn't matter, because God can do anything and therefore the bible is inerrant.

Here's Morris in 'The Bible and Modern Science' and how he accounts for the Jonah and the whale narrative:

The story of Jonah and the whale has been difficult also for many to believe. It was formerly claimed that no whale possessed a gullet large enough to admit a man, for example. However, it is now known that there is at least one whale, the sperm whale, which inhabits the Mediterranean, which is quite capable of swallowing a much larger object than a man. There are also a number of other fish with sufficiently large gullets, and it may be significant that the Bible account speaks of a "great fish," "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17).

There have even been a number of accounts, some of them well authenticated, of men in modern times having been swallowed by the sperm whale or some other sea monster, and then later being rescued alive. However, if necessary, there is no reason for us to refuse to believe in an actual miraculous intervention by GOD in the preservation of Jonah's life. It is even possible that Jonah actually died and was then restored to life by God, as Lazarus and others recorded in Scripture. The LORD JESUS (Matthew 12:40) accepted the story of Jonah as authentic history, and even used it as a type or symbol of His own coming death and resurrection.
I ran across this yesterday. Reviews of Thirty One Creationist Books
It includes several by Morris. (15-19 & 30). The reviews are pithy, pointed and perceptive.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,556
71
✟318,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So if a worldwide flood created the Grand Canyon, then how come all land on Earth doesn't look like the Grand Canyon?

Good question. To take it a bit farther how about Monument Valley which is not all that far from The Grand Canyon? Or Arches? Either of those are even harder to explain being formed by a huge flood than the Grand Canyon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy D
Upvote 0

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
You have to find evidence for a meteorological event that would cause 40 days and nights of rain, and you also have to find that this flood caused a flood a about 40 feet deep to come over the top of the highest mountains (Himalayas, Rockies, etc). That is not submerging the entire earth to a depth of a mile or more, but rather a flash flood that comes down the side of the mountain. Also, in such an event silt would not be the evidence but boulders and huge ripple marks corresponding with a 40 foot deep flood. You also have to have evidence of a boat with a bunch of animals saved alive that transformed human civilization. If you don't have those 3 pieces of evidence then you don't have evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Just about every culture has a flood story in its culture. Just one of many bits of the puzzle that confirms God's word.
Weird that these cultures and stories survived being wiped out by a global flood that left just one family alive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ZNP

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2020
4,311
1,382
Atlanta
✟54,279.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Weird that these cultures and stories survived being wiped out by a global flood that left just one family alive.
there is overwhelming evidence of a global flood at the end of the last ice age. Over 100 independent stories from different tribes and civilizations generally is considered conclusive evidence that something happened and not the old tired "flood", but these stories are specific enough in detail to feel they are all talking about the same event. For example, the oldest chinese character for boat is a word that literally means 8 souls (Noah, his 3 sons, and their wives).

There is also geologic evidence that at the end of the last ice age huge floods 40 feet deep came down out of the Himalayas and Rockies and swept across the continents. We theorized large ice dams were created at the end of the ice age as the glaciers melted and then these dams gave way. This theory has very little basis, we are currently watching glaciers melts and they don't form ice dams. (this theory of ice dams is portrayed in the Ice Age cartoon movies). But what isn't a theory is that huge floods did come down from the Himalayas 40 feet deep and also from the Rockies. We can measure the depth of the water from the height of the ripple marks that were left behind.

Not only so but at the same time hundreds of species of large ungulates all went extinct on the six continents. There is no plausible explanation for how this would happen if you do not include a global cataclysmic flood. The current theories are woefully lacking in evidence. 1. Man hunted several hundred creatures to extinction on 6 different continents at the same time even though there are no bones or skins as evidence to support this. 2. Disease killed several hundred species on 6 continents even though they are different species and many of these creatures like the Saber tooth tiger do not travel in large packs but are relatively isolated. 3. There was stress on their habitat even though at the end of the ice age habitat was expanding, not shrinking.

There is evidence that the Black sea flooded at the end of the last ice age wiping out the community living by the lake at the time.

There is evidence of a large meteorite that hit the Indian ocean at this time causing giant chevrons to form on Madagascar from mud and sediment from the ocean floor and vaporizing a huge amount of sea water and sending it up into the stratosphere where it would have circled the globe and come down as rain, perhaps even for the next 40 days.
 
Upvote 0