Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It shows the Grand Canyon strata as proof of a Global Flood to be false. You can't have footprints between perceived flood layers. And never-mind the limestone layers which cannot form from a flood. Why do you keep ignoring this?I really don't intend to go back and forth with you on this....I've presented plenty of eidence that shows the sand was not windblown. If you disagree...so be it.
Its available now. It shows a depth on the continental shelves of sediment more than 3 times the elevation (30,000 meters) of Mount Everest (8,848 meters) , and that is not even taking into account terrestrial sediment.I'll be waiting for your reference.
The mountains were already there when the flood happened. That is evidence of older more violent geologic events. It is the presence of these landforms that would cause violent erosion and deposition in certain areas. Flatlands wouldn't show nearly a much erosion/deposition. I believe the flood came in, and receded, much like the tides, which leave little evidence over wide areas of relatively flat terrain.
The condition of the land should be considered as well. Except where areas of land were under cultivation the earth's surface would have been quite stable, covered with forests and mature pasture and grassland that would have stabilized the soil against the inwash of the flood. Of course after a year of being submerged much topsoil would be swept into the sea by the receding waters of the flood. This might account for the deserts.
Its available now. It shows a depth on the continental shelves of sediment more than 3 times the elevation (30,000 meters) of Mount Everest (8,848 meters) , and that is not even taking into account terrestrial sediment.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/sedthick/sedthick.html
I still fail to see why this is a problem.
The bible tells us the mountains rose and the valleys sank.
That's because you understand nothing about geology.
Chapter and verse?
Google it. It's been presented to you numerous times.
Ah, you've got nothing then.
No biggie. I'm used to you making stuff up at this point.
The problem is that sediment thickness is more than 3 times more than that of the flood water depth. Surely you can see a problem there.I still fail to see why this is a problem. The bible tells us the mountains rose and the valleys sank. At the shelves there was a deep area for the sediment to settle.
Perhaps this is where the fountains of the deep erupted causing this space.
To make the claim that it refuted the flood is unwarranted.
No. It shows your lack of the ability to use resources at your fingertips.
Then again...perhaps you're afraid to open a bible.
I've found no such statement in the bible, even after doing a word search on Biblegateway.com. Anybody?-57 The bible tells us the mountains rose and the valleys sank.
No. It shows your lack of the ability to use resources at your fingertips.
Then again...perhaps you're afraid to open a bible.
The problem is that sediment thickness is more than 3 times more than that of the flood water depth. Surely you can see a problem there.
I've found no such statement in the bible, even after doing a word search on Biblegateway.com. Anybody?
What you have said throughout this thread demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of earth science, not to mention that you are making claims the bible says things it doesn't, and I'm not talking about interpretation.I see no problem there. Perhaps you ought to go back and re-read what I said. Whether or not those scenarios allowed for the thick sediment we may never know...but the feasibility of what I posted is most certainly a possibility. Ypur simple statement of thickness being too great fails.
What you have said throughout this thread demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of earth science, not to mention that you are making claims the bible says things it doesn't, and I'm not talking about interpretation.
Creation science claims that all sedimentary layers of rock were laid down by a global flood. When measuring those sediments we find that they exceed the height of the tallest mountain on earth by a factor or more than three. How does a flood that was more than three times less than the sediment it deposited do that?
From [URL='https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+104%3A8&version=NET']Biblegateway:[/URL]It's prettty obvious you didn't look very hard.
Psalms 104:8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them.
From Biblegateway: as the mountains rose up,
and the valleys went down—
to the place you appointed for them.
It's the continental shelf which was not under water 12,000 years ago, not a hole, and that doesn't even take into account everything above the shelf.Let me say it in simpler terms....It depends on how deep the hole is. It's not rocket science Rick. You of all people should know that.
I know its not rocket science, its Earth Science, a field I am a professional in and you are completely ignorant of.It's not rocket science Rick. You of all people should know that.
Yeah...I made up the verse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?