Evidence for a global flood

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What exactly does that have to do with it? It is a model.

A model is not evidence of anything. (It is also a model that has no relevance to what you claim to be modeling).

 

[Greg1234]

A model is not evidence of anything. (It is also a model that has no relevance to what you claim to be modeling).

Understand the what is meant by a global fire. Then you'll understand what is meant here by a global flood.

 

[juvenissun]

Ok, let's see...


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.

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/

The original abstract is here: geology(dot)gsapubs(dot)org/content/33/8/665.abstract

As you can see, they actually did find alkaline rocks at the center in the form of dikes and sills, which suggests an alkaline pluton at depth.

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.

Thanks for the links.

If you can get a few measurements such as thickness of formations, etc. from literature, you do can get a pretty good estimation of dips from the satellite image.

I like the appearance of alkaline rocks there. It says to me this is more likely to be an eruptive structure rather than a tectonic deformation. I am not sure, But I guess this structure might be Mesozoic in age or older.

 

[visa]

I used to think this too; but I have recently changed my stance.

What have you found?

 

[visa]

Understand the what is meant by a global fire. Then you'll understand what is meant here by a global flood.

This is nothing less than lunacy.

 

[Greg1234]

This is nothing less than lunacy.

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]

 

[visa]

First of all, do you understand what is meant by a global fire in these?

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.


​

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.

​

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Evidence of a global fire[/FONT][FONT=Arial,helvetica]. 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]

Unable to post links............

We see the K-T boundary which tells us something big happened, don't you think we should also be able to see if there had been a global flood?

 

[Greg1234]

Unable to post links............

We see the K-T boundary which tells us something big happened, don't you think we should also be able to see if there had been a global flood?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[juvenissun]

Unable to post links............

We see the K-T boundary which tells us something big happened, don't you think we should also be able to see if there had been a global flood?

As I said, you (and I) see the ocean. How strong should the evidence be?

If you are not impressed, then take a look of Mars, Venus, etc. Then come back to take a glance of the earth. Why should the earth be so special?

 

[Nostromo]

As I said, you (and I) see the ocean. How strong should the evidence be?

Could you do us all a favour and break down your reasoning into steps? I see the ocean, therefore global flood, is a bit... vague.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to tear my hair out if you do, but it would be nice to hear it anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

 

[Hespera]

It means among other things that there is no evidence what so ever, and that he uses standards of evidence that would sure horrify him if he were on trial!

it would be kind of funny to see it thrown back at someone that way.

 

[Doveaman]

Could you do us all a favour and break down your reasoning into steps? I see the ocean, therefore global flood, is a bit... vague.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to tear my hair out if you do, but it would be nice to hear it anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

If I was to guess I'm thinking he meant that much of the ocean we see today is left over water from the flood.

A fountain like this one followed by a whirlpool probably created the Eye of the Sahara (Richat Structure).

 

[Inan3]

Unable to post links............

We see the K-T boundary which tells us something big happened, don't you think we should also be able to see if there had been a global flood?

Well, it's been my experience here that you guys only see what you WANT to see so in anwer to your question, I'd say "no."

But there are those who do see evidence, not that YOU will believe it but it's always worth posting.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood

Worldwide Geologic Evidence of the Genesis Flood

 

[Orogeny]

If I was to guess I'm thinking he meant that much of the ocean we see today is left over water from the flood.

A fountain like this one followed by a whirlpool probably created the Eye of the Sahara (Richat Structure).

Please give us a quick summary of the processes necessary to form the Richat Structure via the mechanism you hypothesize. Include things like sediment source, hydrodynamic regime, depositional processes, tectonic setting, and any other factors you deem necessary. They will need to be sufficient to explain the rock types, sedimentary structures, bed thicknesses, and bedding attitudes observed in units that are a part of the Richat Structure. Thanks in advance.

 

[Orogeny]

Well, it's been my experience here that you guys only see what you WANT to see...

Boy, that's quite a statement coming from someone who's got the entirety of the rock record (not to mention the vast libraries of peer-reviewed geological publications that refute flood geology) telling them quite clearly that there was no flood, yet who still believes otherwise. Pot, kettle, etc.

Feel free to keep your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed, but don't blame us when you trip over your own hubris.

 

[chris4243]

Well, it's been my experience here that you guys only see what you WANT to see so in anwer to your question, I'd say "no."

But there are those who do see evidence, not that YOU will believe it but it's always worth posting.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood

Worldwide Geologic Evidence of the Genesis Flood

Rather than try to refute this (you won't believe me), I'll give you something to think about. These people are liars. My proof: they are not trying to convince knowledgeable people but only laymen. Track down their references and this is what you'll find: they are a small group always referencing each other only in their little group. Their "papers" are written in such a way that they would never convince an expert in the field -- where's the raw data, the references, the independent confirmation? Where are the chi-squared analyses, standard deviations, p values? These people are not doing science! They can't convince the experts, so they try to convince laymen.

Check for yourself if you don't believe me. These are not people walking in the light

John 3:19-21
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

 

[Inan3]

Boy, that's quite a statement coming from someone who's got the entirety of the rock record (not to mention the vast libraries of peer-reviewed geological publications that refute flood geology) telling them quite clearly that there was no flood, yet who still believes otherwise. Pot, kettle, etc.

Feel free to keep your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed, but don't blame us when you trip over your own hubris.

I'm sorry but I am not as impressed by the records and publications that are not so much peer-reviewed as you might think. Think about it who accepts or rejects these publications? It is a controlled environment and from what I have seen of the scientific community they are not the upstanding wonderful society that everyone touts them to be. They are just as devious and manipulative and greedy as the rest of society. The only thing they have going for themselves is the power deals that go on behind the scenes. Nope. I don't see as you do. In fact, I think it is you who have your eyes closed and fingers in your ears. You fall for ANYTHING they say. THEY are YOUR gods not mine. They will fail you. There is only ONE God who you can trust and one way to that God and it is through, Jesus Christ and Him alone.

 

[Doveaman]

Please give us a quick summary of the processes necessary to form the Richat Structure via the mechanism you hypothesize.

"The waters receded. And the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens were closed." (Gen 8:1-2).

Include things like sediment source, hydrodynamic regime, depositional processes, tectonic setting, and any other factors you deem necessary. They will need to be sufficient to explain the rock types, sedimentary structures, bed thicknesses, and bedding attitudes observed in units that are a part of the Richat Structure.

Totally irrelevant.

 

[Doveaman]

Boy, that's quite a statement coming from someone who's got the entirety of the rock record (not to mention the vast libraries of peer-reviewed geological publications that refute flood geology) telling them quite clearly that there was no flood, yet who still believes otherwise.

As I often say, Peer-Review can take a hike.

 

[Inan3]

Rather than try to refute this (you won't believe me), I'll give you something to think about. These people are liars. My proof: they are not trying to convince knowledgeable people but only laymen. Track down their references and this is what you'll find: they are a small group always referencing each other only in their little group. Their "papers" are written in such a way that they would never convince an expert in the field -- where's the raw data, the references, the independent confirmation? Where are the chi-squared analyses, standard deviations, p values? These people are not doing science! They can't convince the experts, so they try to convince laymen.

Check for yourself if you don't believe me.

That all sounds very scientific of you but think about this. Those who write these so called "papers" YOU nor I can verify that they are true. I know you will say that their "peers" verify them, but how do you know this for sure. No, this is a controlled environment and ANYONE or ANYTHING that refutes their cause will not be accepted. There are the "few" "peers" who are in control and no one is getting through without there permission and acceptance.

These are not people walking in the light.

John 3:19-21
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

And talk about manipulation!!! Please don't try to use the scriptures to manipulate me to see it your way. The VERY LAST thing Jesus was talking about here was what you are trying to represent.

He was talking more about the Richard Dawkins and the Stephen Hawkings of the world. Atheists!!! Those who did not believe in Him. Those who refused to come to the light. Those who promote and control much of the world of science. Those who prefer darkness rather than come to Him and use science as their mask to hide behind.

Category:Scientist - Celebrity Atheist List

One day the evil deeds of these men will come to the Light and be exposed and sadly, those who are deceived by them will be right there. The blind leading the blind and Jesus said they will both fall in the ditch. Don't fall in the ditch with them. Come to the true Light, Jesus Christ.