Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

dad · May 12, 2005

Valkhorn said:
I see how it goes:

Creationist: But you see if there was a global flood then x, y, or z would have to have happened!
Everyone else: You don't realize, there never was a global flood.
*everyone else refutes x, y, and z repeatedly*
Creationist: Give me the proof there never was a global flood!
Everyone else: OK. Here's exhibit A.
Creationist: Why... that has to be skewed because I know there was a global flood!
Everyone else: Skewed? Do you think it's a conspiracy by millions of scientists over 200 years that they haven't found a single shred of evidence for the global flood?
Creationist: Of course it is! They want to take god out of the world!
Everyone else: No that's not the case... Here's exhibit B if you want.
Creationist: But wait. *repeats original claims x, y, and/or z* So there!
Everyone else: Didn't you see we refuted that ages ago!
Creationist: So there, there really was a global flood!
Everyone else: You're not listening are you?
Creationist: Because the grand canyon had to be cut in a year!
Everyone else: What?... wait... just answer me this... do you have any extrabiblical evidence that hasn't been refuted?

*thus continues a cycle of PRATTs*

First we explore the limits of the box, then we get a better idea of how they got it wrong.

Valkhorn · May 12, 2005

First we explore the limits of the box, then we get a better idea of how they got it wrong.

Definition of Irony:

Assertion:
Dad claims that others cannot think outside of the box, and thus can't see how they got anything wrong.

The Reality:
Dad has not done any research on anything, and bases all of his conclusions on blind assumption. Thus, he is himself in a box and refuses to see how to think outside of it so that he may realize that he is wrong.

Irony Meter:
- [....../] +

dad · May 12, 2005

Dad has not done any research on anything, and bases all of his conclusions on blind assumption

You only say blind, because you can't see it, and assume it is assumption. Research need not be limited only to the physical. Box research can be interpreted properly when you have more pieces to the puzzle also.

MarkT · May 13, 2005

Since salt is water soluble, I imagine the waters under the earth were salty. Maybe underground rivers carried it like sediment and dropped it here and there leaving thick deposits in places. But that assumes salt existed in some form before it entered into the water. It could be salt was carried to the surface by underground water and then it got into the sea.

The limestone layers would suggest carbonates were also carried to the surface and dropped. The crinoid layers would suggest these creatures lived and died underground. Also gastropods and coral polyps lived there.

Lucretius · May 13, 2005

Dad, if it's not falsifiable it's not science. That's why the supernatural will never be considered a scientific answer, and that's why God is never a scientific answer.

MarkT · May 13, 2005

Dad, if it's not falsifiable it's not science. That's why the supernatural will never be considered a scientific answer, and that's why God is never a scientific answer.

Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.

Valkhorn · May 13, 2005

You only say blind, because you can't see it, and assume it is assumption. Research need not be limited only to the physical. Box research can be interpreted properly when you have more pieces to the puzzle also.

You fail to see how the supernatural cannot, and will never be Science.

Science deals with what we can know, what we can see, observe, test, or measure. You cannot measure spirits, you cannot see them, test them, observe them, or even make predictions about them. You can make predictions with science - like predicting where the stars and the planets will be in the future, or predicting the force of gravity with a given mass or even predict how life will work with evolution.

You cannot do this with the supernatural. You cannot say that x circumstances at y time will always yield a spirit. You cannot determine the mass of a spirit, you cannot measure a ghost, and you cannot state anything specific about a god, gods, or even demi-gods because their very definition transcends what is measurable and testable.

A god is in the realm of omnipotence. It can do very well whatever it wants to do hypothetically speaking. You need not apply any science to it or anything like that because it's all faith. For example, in the real world you can predict that objects will behave a certain way or have certain forces exerted on them in a closed system. (Newtonian physics). When you invoke the supernatural, you cannot invoke any rules whatsoever. A god, or creator with omnipotence can do whatever they desire, so how can you place any rules on it all?

This is why there is a sharp difference between science and 'pseudoscience' (read: what is not science).

And I wish, for the love of sanity, that you'd finally get this into your thick skull.

After all, if we are to invoke the supernatural, then I'm going to have to invent (since I don't believe in one) a god which invalidates yours, and which can actually be supported by physical evidence.

Oh wait, theistic evolutionists already do that and they believe in the same god you do. They're just willing to step outside of the box of arrogance and ignorance to complement their faith with god with the knowledge and wisdom of science.

Dad, wake up and smell the coffee.

Valkhorn · May 13, 2005

Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.

Houston, I believe we have a drive by posting.

random_guy · May 13, 2005

MarkT said:
Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.

With Atheists, you know they're kidding. With Christians, you just go . Now, you have no faith icon, so I'm not sure. However, based on your posting history, .

Why fight about what is better, the Bible or Science? Why make that false dichotomy? If you do that, I'm positive this will drive a lot of people away from Christianity. If I were forced to choose between science and the Bible, I would not be a Christian*.

*What I mean is, if you asked me, I had to believe in a world-wide flood to be a Christian, even though every single scientific evidence points against it, I would be rational and choose science over fundy Christianity.

Hungry Hungry Hippo · May 13, 2005

MarkT said:
Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.

Hallelujah!

notto · May 13, 2005

MarkT said:
Since salt is water soluble, I imagine the waters under the earth were salty. Maybe underground rivers carried it like sediment and dropped it here and there leaving thick deposits in places. But that assumes salt existed in some form before it entered into the water. It could be salt was carried to the surface by underground water and then it got into the sea.

The limestone layers would suggest carbonates were also carried to the surface and dropped. The crinoid layers would suggest these creatures lived and died underground. Also gastropods and coral polyps lived there.

Doesn't explain the pollen we find in the salt.

Also, salt isn't dropped like sediment, the water needs to be evaporated. It doesn't drop out of the water because, as you said, it is water soluble.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 13, 2005

dad said:
How about this one. (?) Rather than an annual thing, varves were a pre flood daily thing? Rough calculation, it would only then take 547 years. (200,000 days) Today, of course, the way these things are formed usually would be anually.
What if the moisture coming up from the earth before the flood (to water stuff instead of rain), pre flood world wind patterns, etc simply gave us the patterns we now see?
"Varves are formed by seasonal variations in sedimentary deposition.The lighter band is laid down during the summer when a greater flow of water from inflowing streams brings coarse,sandy material into the lake.The larger particles settle rather quickly but the tiny clay particles remain in suspension due to the agitation of the lake water caused by the inflowing streams and also by wind." http://www.reasons.org/chapters/australia/newsletters/200410/200410_newsletter.pdf

The layers could not have been laid down daily. Daily evaporation would have only led to layers fractions of a millimeter thick so they would not be visible. The varves that Hugh Ross is talking about in the web site you point are formed slightly differently but are another refutation of the young earth along with many others that this Old Earth Creationist site presents.

FB

MarkT · May 13, 2005

Doesn't explain the pollen we find in the salt.

Also, salt isn't dropped like sediment, the water needs to be evaporated. It doesn't drop out of the water because, as you said, it is water soluble.

Well the salt has to get into the water in the first place doesn't it? Water carries salt.

If I remember correctly, hot water has a higher saturation point so a super saturated river of salt would carry salt to the surface and salt would precipitate out along the way.

I figure all the salt in ocean water had to come from underground.

And pollen would have come from the surface so there was probably a circulation system. I can imagine a whole underground ecosystem connected to the surface by underground rivers. The water at the mouth of the rivers would have been less salty. All kinds of marine animals could have been living there in that enviroment and even further down where the water was more salty.

The preflood conditions were swampy low land and drier areas. The difference between the surface and the underground wasn't great.

MarkT · May 13, 2005

With Atheists, you know they're kidding. With Christians, you just go . Now, you have no faith icon, so I'm not sure. However, based on your posting history, .

Why fight about what is better, the Bible or Science? Why make that false dichotomy? If you do that, I'm positive this will drive a lot of people away from Christianity. If I were forced to choose between science and the Bible, I would not be a Christian*.

*What I mean is, if you asked me, I had to believe in a world-wide flood to be a Christian, even though every single scientific evidence points against it, I would be rational and choose science over fundy Christianity.

You can sigh all you want.

In case you don't know it, there is a mechanism for separating the goats from the sheep and you can't be in both camps at the same time. There is knowledge and understanding that comes from God by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said many things that drove people away.

This is not a false dichotomy. Nobody's telling you to choose ignorance.

What we're talking about is common sense versus "godless" science.

Believers, in fact, make better scientists. At least they used to. Newton was a Christian, I believe.

Split Rock · May 13, 2005

MarkT said:
And pollen would have come from the surface so there was probably a circulation system. I can imagine a whole underground ecosystem connected to the surface by underground rivers. The water at the mouth of the rivers would have been less salty. All kinds of marine animals could have been living there in that enviroment and even further down where the water was more salty.

I can "imagine" all sorts of things about the "Preflood" Earth. I can imagine little purple pixies directing huge underground rivers and the God Poseidon directing the Flood from his underwater throne. None of that cuts any butter, though.

MarkT said:
The preflood conditions were swampy low land and drier areas. The difference between the surface and the underground wasn't great.

If there were "drier" areas, how can you say there wasn't much difference? In any case, do you have any evidence to back this up? Anything in scripture? Or is this just more "imagining" on your part?

MarkT · May 13, 2005

I can "imagine" all sorts of things about the "Preflood" Earth. I can imagine little purple pixies directing huge underground rivers and the God Poseidon directing the Flood from his underwater throne. None of that cuts any butter, though.

Evidently we have salt water and fresh water. The earth is covered with mostly salt water.

Where did the salt to make sea water salty come from?

Underground.

If you have a better explanation, let's hear it.

MarkT · May 13, 2005

but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- Genesis 2:6

madarab · May 13, 2005

MarkT, why don't you threaten a little head-bashing or burning at the stake while you're at it?

dad · May 13, 2005

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
The layers could not have been laid down daily. Daily evaporation would have only led to layers fractions of a millimeter thick so they would not be visible. The varves that Hugh Ross is talking about in the web site you point are formed slightly differently but are another refutation of the young earth along with many others that this Old Earth Creationist site presents.

FB

How do we know there was even a lot of evaporation then? What with a different atmosphere, and therefore probably ionosphere, etc. How much of this stuff even happened pre fall? In that case, we would even have some possible spiritual light, and totally different principles at work there. Our present sun, and radiation, and all give us our present conditions, like evaporation. What if it was much less or more then? Why only millimeters? I envision a new planet, not compressed by the flood, and time, etc, where likely the whole world was very different. Besides, it wasn't perhaps the evaporation then only that led to the pattern? If it was in or near an old sea, for example, we may have had things like tidal action, wind currents localized, flood plains, tidal pools, or ???!
The great weakness of evoism is having only the present frame of reference to how things now work.
You may yet be correct, however, with just what you have so far on offer, the jury must stay out here.

Jimmy The Hand · May 13, 2005

The great weakness of evoism is having only the present frame of reference to how things now work.

And the great weakness of creationism is it has zero evidence, only speculation.

At least geology is actually based on evidence.

Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood

Undefeated!

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Undefeated!

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Senior Veteran

Bane of Marbles

Legend

Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Member

Undefeated!

I Have Been Complexified!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency