Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Flood, big, small or not at all???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Praxiteles" data-source="post: 400267" data-attributes="member: 4188"><p>Fossil shells in the Himalayas, and the Grand Canyon are not evidence of a global flood.&nbsp; </p><p></p><p>The Himalayas were formed as a result of the movement of tectonic plates, and the fossils were thrust up by that pressure along with all the other existing strata. </p><p></p><p>The Grand Canyon is is excellent evidence <em>against</em> a global flood, so I would seriously reconsider bringing it up in defence of such a thing.&nbsp; For example, among the strata exposed in the canyon are fossils that can only be formed on dry land.&nbsp; There is a name for these fossils, but I can't think of it right now.&nbsp; Examples of these are raindrop patterns in sand, and&nbsp;animal tracks&nbsp;in sand.&nbsp; How on earth can these have formed during a deluge? </p><p></p><p>(Should you want to point to raindrop patterns and say "Aha!&nbsp; Flood!", you should realise that if the rain were steady then the patterns wouldn't form.&nbsp; The rain needs to pattern the sand, and then it needs to dry out.&nbsp; Difficult to do under flood conditions, I&nbsp;think you'll agree!) </p><p></p><p>As much as you may wish it to be so, these are not "interpretations" of the data.&nbsp; There is only one way for these phenomena to occur, and it isn't a flood of any kind - local or global. </p><p></p><p>Cheers, </p><p></p><p>Prax </p><p></p><p>&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Praxiteles, post: 400267, member: 4188"] Fossil shells in the Himalayas, and the Grand Canyon are not evidence of a global flood. The Himalayas were formed as a result of the movement of tectonic plates, and the fossils were thrust up by that pressure along with all the other existing strata. The Grand Canyon is is excellent evidence [i]against[/i] a global flood, so I would seriously reconsider bringing it up in defence of such a thing. For example, among the strata exposed in the canyon are fossils that can only be formed on dry land. There is a name for these fossils, but I can't think of it right now. Examples of these are raindrop patterns in sand, and animal tracks in sand. How on earth can these have formed during a deluge? (Should you want to point to raindrop patterns and say "Aha! Flood!", you should realise that if the rain were steady then the patterns wouldn't form. The rain needs to pattern the sand, and then it needs to dry out. Difficult to do under flood conditions, I think you'll agree!) As much as you may wish it to be so, these are not "interpretations" of the data. There is only one way for these phenomena to occur, and it isn't a flood of any kind - local or global. Cheers, Prax [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Flood, big, small or not at all???
Top
Bottom