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.
I think it was created by God, not by natural means.
Whether it was used for water to go down, or [more than likely] come out, is anyone's guess.
And as for the White Cliffs of Dover, I believe God stockpiled those coccoliths there when He cleaned up the mess after the Flood.
Actually, it's not -- these are educated guesses.It's easy to make things up.
I think scientists believe that, at different times, every square inch of the earth was under water -- but not all at once.I tend to believe in several partial-global floods myself.....
part of the globe is being flooded even as we speak1 memphis etc.I tend to believe in several partial-global floods myself.....
That wasn't so hard. Like I said, it's easy to make things up.
Actually, it's not -- these are educated guesses.
You see, the difference is, when someone just 'makes things up', he eventually contradicts himself.
If you think it's so easy -- you try it.
Well there's always the evidence of a genetic bottleneck down to two for the unclean, and 7 for the clean, among the land animals, the extinction of fresh or salt water fish who would not be able to survive in the other type of water, and the fact that earthworms only exist near the area where the Ark landed because of how slowly they migrate, and the evidence of migration patterns of all species originating from where the ark landed.
That's what we find anyways.
First of all, do you understand what is meant by a global fire in these?Where do we find this?
What sort of geologic evidence is there for a global flood? Please do not deviate off into tangents about evolution. This is strictly about geology.
1. Hadn't heard of this one before. I have no idea how it can be interpreted as evidence for a flood though. As Tim's wiki link said, it's an antiformal dome, which is an area that's undergone symmetrical strain on all sides causing it to bow upwards in a circular pattern.
If structure is your interest, this could be a good exercise for you (I don't know much about it).
According to the pattern, this structure should have high dips around the bull's eye area and the dips become much more gentle outside the bull's eye (as you can see on the shape of ridges in the background). Unfortunately, this is not an impact crater. So the force which made this type of piercing action could only be something like a kimberlite-type eruption (I don't think people found alkaline rocks there).
Anyway, it suggests something was coming up focused and forceful from the ground. What could that be? From the change of dip angles, one might be able to reconstruct the stress pattern of the force.
Ok, let's see...If structure is your interest, this could be a good exercise for you (I don't know much about it).
Are you getting this from the pictures or did you think this up yourself? Because if you think of the structure of a dome, the highest dips should actually be about halfway between the peak of the dome and the transition to flat-lying rocks.According to the pattern, this structure should have high dips around the bull's eye area and the dips become much more gentle outside the bull's eye (as you can see on the shape of ridges in the background).
This is not an eruptive structure, though minor eruptions associated with plutonism have occurred. There was no "piercing action" as you called it. Here's a summary of an article that discusses this structure, as well as a link to the abstract for the article: earth-pages(dot)co(dot)uk/2005/08/Unfortunately, this is not an impact crater. So the force which made this type of piercing action could only be something like a kimberlite-type eruption (I don't think people found alkaline rocks there).
There's no way I would trust dip angles measured casually from a satellite image. Yes, there are ways to do it accurately, but I have neither the time nor the software to do them.Anyway, it suggests something was coming up focused and forceful from the ground. What could that be? From the change of dip angles, one might be able to reconstruct the stress pattern of the force.
Of course this event 65 million years ago has nothing to do with the Biblical Flood of Noah a few thousand years ago.First of all, do you understand what is meant by a global fire in these?
'Giant asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs from Earth fell in India' - Brahmand.com
The tremendous impact would have ignited global fires, initiated tsunamis, destroyed coastal habitats, produced acid rains, turned seawater acidic, dissolved carbonate-shelled animals and devastated the biosphere. Millions of organisms would have died instantly from the tremendous tremor and the global fire generated from the impact.NEW EVIDENCE INDICATES GLOBAL FIRESTORM KILLED OFF DINOSAURS | Deseret News
Scientists Wednesday published new evidence to bolster a controversial theory that dinosaurs went extinct because of a global firestorm sparked by the impact of a giant meteorite.More Confusion At The K-T Boundary
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Evidence of a global fire. Soot appears at the K-T boundary at many sites, but where did it come from? Chemical analyses of these soots show an enhanced concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons over soots above and below the boundary. This is strong evidence of pyrolytic action at the K-T boundary; i.e., widespread fires. (Venkatesan, M.I., and Dahl, J.; "Organic Geochemical Evidence for Global Fires at the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boun dary," Nature, March 2, 1989.) Fire could have been initiated by either volcanism or impacts.[/FONT]
Actually, it's not -- these are educated guesses.
You see, the difference is, when someone just 'makes things up', he eventually contradicts himself.
If you think it's so easy -- you try it.
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?