Biblical Flood

[troodon]

Let's everyone just sit back a second and look at what's going on here.

Calypsis4 has posted several pictures, many of which are pictures of things that were deposited under rapid conditions. There is nothing inconsistent with rapid deposition and an old earth - we see rapid deposition in the present all of the time, therefore we must infer that it happened in the distant past. Calypsis4's pictures pose no threat to the old earth model, in fact they show things that are an integral part of that model, and some of them are pretty awesome (Velociraptor vs. Protoceratops. FIGHT!!!)

On the other hand, on the first page of this thread, there were posted several falsifications of the global flood model - none of which have been addressed at all. The nearest we got was Calypsis4 quoting part of one, saying "nuh-uh!", and then moving on to something totally unrelated.

So, as of this point in the thread, two things have been rather conclusively established:

1) Periods of rapid deposition have been recorded in the geologic record.
2) The global flood model has been falsified.

So if any Creationists would like to actually address the angular unconformities on the first page, and explain how they can be created by a global flood, please do so. Your theory is in jeopardy!

From the Morrison Formation in the western USA. This diagram (printed by evolutionists) reveal 750 million missing years of strata. Where is your 'Jurassic period' stratum, Mallon?

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!1!!!oneone!~~!!!!!@!!!

Oh Calypsis4, thank you. I've been working on a presentation all day and I desperately needed that.

 

[Orogeny]

No. If that were the case, it will be difficult to make the flood.

So the Earth has always had the same amount of water? If this is the case, how does 'lots of ocean water' in any way support the flood hypothesis?

The more likely picture is that the land was much closer to the sea level.

That's not what you said here. So you've alternately said 'lots of water from the flood' and 'same amount of water, but the land is higher'. Which is it? Again, provide GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE for your argument. That means a figure, a text, a chart, a diagram... include EVIDENCE with your post.

And geology said it is true.

Where? Cite evidence.

If the mind is not ready, evidence (miracles) will not be useful. Lord Jesus says that. (if you do not know what am I talking about here, then please ask, I will explain.)

Not sure where this came from. We're having a scientific conversation, right?

 

[Orogeny]

Right!

And polar bears lived in the Amazon jungle too. If you don't believe that just ask Mallon!

Provide scientific evidence indicating that no dinosaurs dwelt in arid or desert environments. Until you do this, your comparison is moot, and the the evidence, which is that some did in fact inhabit the desert, stands.

 

[troodon]

Provide scientific evidence indicating that no dinosaurs dwelt in arid or desert environments. Until you do this, your comparison is moot, and the the evidence, which is that some did in fact inhabit the desert, stands.

He'd have to use geology to show that, which since it's 100% wrong about everything always, so it isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[Calypsis4]

Let's everyone just sit back a second and look at what's going on here.

Yes, I wish you would. You haven't done it yet.

Calypsis4 has posted several pictures, many of which are pictures of things that were deposited under rapid conditions. There is nothing inconsistent with rapid deposition and an old earth - we see rapid deposition in the present all of the time, therefore we must infer that it happened in the distant past.

With the exception of the local floods and volcanic activity on the local level that has occured since then, most of the evidence speaks of the universal destruction of the flood of Noah. Jesus Christ said so. Dear readers, what this skeptic has to say to the contrary means nothing. The evidence is there as I posted it and there is much, much more.

Calypsis4's pictures pose no threat to the old earth model,

Yes, it does. It destroys it.

in fact they show things that are an integral part of that model, and some of them are pretty awesome (Velociraptor vs. Protoceratops. FIGHT!!!)

Dinosaurs instantly buried and fossilized in the middle of the Gobi desert. And just what local event caused that phenomenon if not the cataclysm of Noah's flood? One thing for sure: it froze them in the act...as is. So it is most likely caused by volcanic and/or seimsic activity. But we find so many thing like this all over the world. There is nothing unusual about those dino's except their posture. I posted many of the other example but he dosen't believe Moses account of Genesis so he won't admit to a universal flood even though such things are so prevalent.

On the other hand, on the first page of this thread, there were posted several falsifications of the global flood model - none of which have been addressed at all.

I haven't read them yet but I have done this before. His so-called 'falsifications' are themselve false.

So, as of this point in the thread, two things have been rather conclusively established:

1) Periods of rapid deposition have been recorded in the geologic record.

But not nearly enough to justify the countless billions of fossils we've found and catalogued let alone the many billions that have yet to be unearthed. He and his comrades remind me of the story of the little Dutch boy who tried to stop the leak in the dikes with his fingers. He doesn't have not nearly enough fingers for this problem folks.

2) The global flood model has been falsified.

So if any Creationists would like to actually address the angular unconformities on the first page, and explain how they can be created by a global flood, please do so.

He has a bigger problem explaining the paraconformities in places like the Lewis Overthrust, Heart Mountain, which reveals 'no clear indication of any fault movement between the early basic breccia and the Cove Creek formation...etc." (From the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115). And that's just a few of the problems.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!1!!!oneone!~~!!!!!@!!!

Oh Calypsis4, thank you. I've been working on a presentation all day and I desperately needed that.

You desperately needed to be informed of the 750 million yrs of missing strata in Morrison Formation? That caused you to go into a kniption fit?

Whatever turns you on, fella.

 

[Orogeny]

Quote: "Until 15 to 20 million years ago most of the eastern half of Saudi Arabia was covered by the sea. The low ridge of the hills east of Khurais, about 2.5 hours east of Riyadh, contain the fossilized remains of the marine life deposited about 45 million years ago."
Fossil Hunting in the Desert of Saudi Arabia

That utterly destroys what you just said. Are you going to admit the error?

No, it utterly destroys what you said, which is that the fossils were deposited during the flood, an event that supposedly happened less than 6,000 years ago, not the 45 million cited here. You don't get to pick and choose your science, C4. Also, you're mistaking what is currently a desert for what was a desert at the time of fossil deposition; it certainly was not. This is an embarassing mistake, even for the most lay of men.

I notice that you completely avoided my charts revealing the 245 million yrs of missing strata in the Grand Canyon and the 750 million missing yrs of stata in the Morrison Formation. Why is that?

Probably because you did a fine job of refuting yourself there, and this sentence shows a continued misunderstanding of both the Grand Canyon and the Morrison Formation.

 

[Calypsis4]

Provide scientific evidence indicating that no dinosaurs dwelt in arid or desert environments. Until you do this, your comparison is moot, and the the evidence, which is that some did in fact inhabit the desert, stands.

No it isn't. You are just not using common sense.

It's as simple as understanding that, for example, Alaskan seals could never survive in the grasslands of Nebraska...without man's help. The environment would kill them off quickly.

No one denies that dinosaurs have been found in desert regions but that those regions were actually deserts and/or their actual habitats is the question.

I was shocked as a young man when years ago I discovered the evidence that giant mammoths were found by the thousands in Siberia...a place frozen solid much of the year and not a place that provides much in the way of vegetation; certainly not near enough for a mammoths daily needs as far as consumption requirements. BUT...the evidence of the mammoths led to the discovery that they had undigested food in thier mouths and in their stomachs and that food consisted of plant life that was NOT found in Siberia!

Woolly mammoths resurfacing in Siberia - Los Angeles Times

Think about it.

 

[Orogeny]

(From the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115).

First, post a link to this article. I have an AAPG membership, but was unable to find it. Next, explain how your quoted excerpt supports the existance of a global flood as described in the Bible.

 

[Orogeny]

No it isn't. You are just not using common sense.

Common sense =/= scientific evidence. One person's common sense is much different from another's, and is not valid as evidence. You're making the assertion that there is a single environment that dinosaurs could live in. What was this environment, and can you cite scientific evidence that agrees with you?

It's as simple as understanding that, for example, Alaskan seals could never survive in the grasslands of Nebraska...without man's help. The environment would kill them off quickly.

Yet again, I will ask: Provide scientific evidence that no dinosaurs had the ability to survive in a desert climate. Simply saying that they couldn't, or citing common sense is not good enough. You need scientific evidence to make a scientific argument. Provide it, or cede the point.

No one denies that dinosaurs have been found in desert regions but that those regions were actually deserts and/or their actual habitats is the question.

'No one denies they were deserts, but they may not have been deserts.'
Do you see that you contridicted yourself there?

Provide scientific evidence that these deposits are not those of a desert, and provide evidence that these dinosaurs did not live in the environment in which they were preserved. If this is not their native environment, provide evidence that they were transported and, somehow, deposited in life positions.

I was shocked as a young man when years ago I discovered the evidence that giant mammoths were found by the thousands in Siberia...a place frozen solid much of the year and not a place that provides much in the way of vegetation; certainly not near enough for a mammoths daily needs as far as consumption requirements.

Provide evidence of a dearth of vegitation in Siberia during the Pleistocene. Provide evidence that this dearth was severe enough that a large mammal could not adequately maintain liveable nutrient levels.

BUT...the evidence of the mammoths led to the discovery that they had undigested food in thier mouths and in their stomachs and that food consisted of plant life that was NOT found in Siberia!

Woolly mammoths resurfacing in Siberia - Los Angeles Times

Think about it.

Nowhere in that article was it said that the mammoths had food in their bodies that was not from Pleistocene Siberia. If you want to make that assertion, please provide a citation to back it.

 

[Calypsis4]

...he says, not realizing that the Morrison is a Jurassic formation.

Morrison Formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on, man. Get serious. Are you here to have a scientific debate, or are you just going to lie, twist, ignore, ad hominem and goddidit your way through this thread?

The only mistake I made was to call it the Morrison formation. It was not. It was the Colorado National Monument and the literature specifically says it is the Triassic period. If you had stopped laughing long enough to look closely at the printed part of the picture you would have seen that.

Now explain to the readers why there are 750 million missing yrs of missing strata in that region?

 

[Calypsis4]

quote Orogeny; Common sense =/= scientific evidence.

No wonder you arrive at such wild conclusions. Common sense and scientific fact are two completely different things. Facts are facts but reason is what a person must use to utilize the facts...or misuse them as may be the case. You don't know what you're talking about.

But I don't have time right now to answer the rest of your statements. Back later.


One person's common sense is much different from another's, and is not valid as evidence. You're making the assertion that there is a single environment that dinosaurs could live in. What was this environment, and can you cite scientific evidence that agrees with you?




Yet again, I will ask: Provide scientific evidence that no dinosaurs had the ability to survive in a desert climate. Simply saying that they couldn't, or citing common sense is not good enough. You need scientific evidence to make a scientific argument. Provide it, or cede the point.




'No one denies they were deserts, but they may not have been deserts.'
Do you see that you contridicted yourself there?

Provide scientific evidence that these deposits are not those of a desert, and provide evidence that these dinosaurs did not live in the environment in which they were preserved. If this is not their native environment, provide evidence that they were transported and, somehow, deposited in life positions.



Provide evidence of a dearth of vegitation in Siberia during the Pleistocene. Provide evidence that this dearth was severe enough that a large mammal could not adequately maintain liveable nutrient levels.


Nowhere in that article was it said that the mammoths had food in their bodies that was not from Pleistocene Siberia. If you want to make that assertion, please provide a citation to back it.

In a nutshell: baloney.

 

[troodon]

Calypsis4's pictures pose no threat to the old earth model,

Yes, it does. It destroys it.

It's so funny that you think saying a think makes it so. I'm seriously chuckling to myself right now about it. It makes me wish I were an anthropologist so that I would have some professional excuse for studying people like you, because the way your brain works fascinates me.

Dinosaurs instantly buried and fossilized in the middle of the Gobi desert. And just what local event caused that phenomenon if not the cataclysm of Noah's flood? One thing for sure: it froze them in the act...as is.

It's called "mass movement", I just taught a class about it last week. We used all kinds of stereo-viewer images to show the kids mass movement events that have occurred recently (less than 100 years ago).

So it is most likely caused by volcanic and/or seimsic activity.

You think the aeolian sand surrounding those dinosaurs is a volcanic deposit?

But we find so many thing like this all over the world. .

Why are the vast majority of fossils inarticulated? Why are many dinosaurs known only from teeth because the rest of their bones can't be found?

I haven't read them yet but I have done this before. His so-called 'falsifications' are themselve false.

Those falsifications are kinda what the thread is about.

For one, such a denial is calling both Moses and Jesus Christ liars. They both taught a universal flood which destroyed the entire world.

Only in the same way that Jesus was a liar for telling a story about 10 lamp oil-burning virgins who never existed.

But not nearly enough to justify the countless billions of fossils we've found and catalogued let alone the many billions that have yet to be unearthed.

Billions of years means lots of floods, lots of storms, lots of lahars, lots of turbidic flows, and lots of landslides. That's lots of sediment moved very quickly.

Only in his imagination and the imagination of those who agree with that clap trap.

Awful strong words for someone who hasn't even looked at the evidence.

God's Word still stands and what it says about the flood has the evidence.

"1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Is the Bible God, Calypsis4?

He has a bigger problem explaining the paraconformities in places like the Lewis Overthrust, Heart Mountain, which reveals 'no clear indication of any fault movement between the early basic breccia and the Cove Creek formation...etc." (From the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115). And that's just a few of the problems.

It's easy not to have problems when you refuse to answer questions, ain't it?

You desperately needed to be informed of the 750 million yrs of missing strata in Morrison Formation?

What's funny is how ignorant you are. The Morrison Formation is about 155-145 million years old and represents about 10 million years of time... how can there be 750 million years of missing strata in rocks that are at the most 155 million years old?

Draw a timescale that shows me how you can fit 750 million years into 155 million years.

 

[Mallon]

Dear readers, this fellow doesn't get it. He isn't even close to reality. How many times do I have to explain this? The great flood of Noah placed fossils at virtually every depth of the mountains...which is exactly what we find in the fossil record. Fossils of fish in the Alps, clams in the Andes, and other marine life in the Himalayan mts reveal the truthfulness and veractiy of Moses in Genesis. It DOES NOT support evolutionary theory. It can't!

So how to the fossils get INSIDE the mountains in a flood scenario? You still haven't explained that.

Baloney.The great cataclysm of Noah's flood disturbed the entire surface of the earth...greatly. If you can imagine 100,000 nuclear weapons going off underground at the same time you might get an idea as to why fossils are found deep within the mountains and plateaus of our world.

That still doesn't explain it. Rather, it sounds like you're just making stuff up as you go along. "100,000 nuclear weapons"? Where did you get that figure from? And how would that get fossils INSIDE mountains? Just saying things were tumultuous during the Flood doesn't explain anything.

Really? Notice dear readers that he looks to the atheists at talk/origins. He trust them but not Moses nor Jesus Christ.

I agree with the science of talkorigins. I don't agree with their theology (in fact, I don't even know that they're a uniquely atheist site). There's a difference.
I agree with atheists that the earth goes around the sun, too. That doesn't make me an atheist, too, does it?

And who is the observer for these tectonic events? Who saw massive amounts of land slide over other sections of land? If it wasn't Noah during the great cataclysm, then who?

We can reasonably infer it because we can observe the process of orogeny (mountain-building) at work today. Even the Bible describes mountains as dynamic features that come and go.
Besides, I don't know why you're suddenly giving me a hard time for utilizing scientific inference for things we cannot observe in real-time. You've been doing the same thing this whole time. The Bible doesn't say the fossil record was deposited by the Flood. You're inferring it even though you weren't there to see it happen.

It is your position which is in error...both scientifically and scripturally. You don't have one ounce of scripture to support evolution and you know it.]

True. Then again, I reject your fundamentalist brand of scientific concordism, so that doesn't really matter. I can't find scriptural evidence for heliocentrism or atoms either, but I still accept them.
And that's the point: If there's one thing the Bible has taught us over the centuries, it's that it isn't a reliable source for science. The Bible says the sky is solid. It says the earth is flat and immobile and that the sun rotates around it. These aren't scientifically verifiable claims, but the Bible doesn't claim to be a book of science, so we shouldn't adopt our science from it. The Bible was written to give us theology and theology only. To try to milk science from the Bible is to use it for something it wasn't intended for.

The acceptance of Christ involves trusting His written Word and that includes Genesis. You don't. You don't even believe what He said in the passage I quoted, Matthew 24:37-39.

I trust Jesus. I just don't trust your rigid interpretation of what he said. Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds, too, but we know this isn't true. He was accommodating his message to the experience and limitations of his audience. This I believe. I don't think he was speaking literally. Jesus rarely did.

That is absolutely crazy. It is NOT basic geology. Fossils of marine life are found all over the world including deserts. I've seen it myself while on the field.

Please remember that the earth is dynamic. What is a desert today was not necessarily a desert even a few thousand years ago. In fact, we've seen forests get taken over by desert in northern Africa in just a few generations. Therefore, finding marine fossils in what is now a desert is NOT convincing evidence for a global flood. And simply proof-texting Scripture doesn't make it any more true.

And you think that all the topography of the earth is like that? You did tell me that you were trained in geology, didn't you?

Sigh... That isn't the argument. The argument is that stratified palaeosols are found throughout the fossil record, which could not have been deposited by a global flood.

I notice that you completely avoided my charts revealing the 245 million yrs of missing strata in the Grand Canyon and the 750 million missing yrs of stata in the Morrison Formation. Why is that?

Because it is completely irrelevant to the point of how the fossil termite mounds got into the Morisson Formation to begin with. You simply tried to change the topic without actually addressing my question (again).
Moreover, missing time in rock strata isn't a problem because the earth isn't always depositing sediment in all places. Expanses of missing time are called unconformities and are, again, basic geology. We expect to see them.

 

[troodon]

It's as simple as understanding that, for example, Alaskan seals could never survive in the grasslands of Nebraska...without man's help. The environment would kill them off quickly.

A seal is adapted for an environment totally different from a grassland, we can see where they live now so we know this. What evidence do you have that dinosaurs were adapted for an environment other than a desert?

 

[juvenissun]

So the Earth has always had the same amount of water? If this is the case, how does 'lots of ocean water' in any way support the flood hypothesis?

That's not what you said here. So you've alternately said 'lots of water from the flood' and 'same amount of water, but the land is higher'. Which is it? Again, provide GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE for your argument. That means a figure, a text, a chart, a diagram... include EVIDENCE with your post.



Where? Cite evidence.


Not sure where this came from. We're having a scientific conversation, right?

Not really. In this forum, we talk about theology first, science second.

People in Jesus time ask Him to show some miracles so He can prove Himself as the Son of God. Jesus refused and said that there will be no miracles for this rebellious generation. If you were at that time, will you also ask Him to show a miracle as an evidence of His Godly nature? Jesus is the Son of God, why did He to refuse this very simple and scientific request?

What I mean here is to tell you not to simply yell evidence, evidence. If your reasoning is not mature, then any evidence would not be useful to you. If you are still pushing, then I will tell you that there is NO evidence. Do you still want to talk under that circumstance? Can you work on science with no evidence?

Now back to science:

Let me go back a few steps:

Since the beginning of the earth, the sea water became more and more. And at the same time, the land also became larger and larger. Any question about that?

 

[student ad x]

-MOD HAT ON-

There have been multiple reported posts generated from this thread. The THREAD IS CLOSED.
​

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments, and innuendo.

Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Do not goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian. Avoid using sarcasm to attempt any of the above. This flaming rule also applies to public religious figures.

-MOD HAT OFF-
​