juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree with you on this important view point. Most people do not see this.
Upvote
0
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 could have this all wrong, but this is, is my reasoning. I am not expecting a rush of deep water to spew accross the earth. I expect a gradual rise.
Why do you even bother with trying to come up with logical explanations (which are laughable btw) when you will invoke magic (miracles) as soon as you run out of reasonable ones?
No, you need to look up meander formation. A flood receding would do so in sheet flow. That would not make meanders. Now you are merely repeating your errors.
Are you the one who said you are a Christian yet you don't believe Gods word, he said he created the heavens and the earth. That in him God all things consist. You are saying God lied in the bible when he sent the flood. God sent the flood, that very sentence means he moved the earth in such a way that a global flood occurred. God always has and always will perform acts of power.
Nope, I'm an atheist.
But most christians dont belive the flood happened.
Hi I have started to research erosion to see if it is possible to happen.
So far I would say it is possible if the soil is weak, like freshly deposited sediment.
But to complicate the issue farther let's assume before the flood a river existed maybe even a deep ravine, this is possible. As fresh sediment was deposited during the flood the ravine would still exist, the gully would just be under water. Essentially as the flood plain drained it would follow the course of the existing ravine quickly cutting through the freshly deposited sediment. Remember this is sand not rock at this point.
Sorry that I am confusing you. I don't expect a sudden big flood to sweep over the land. It is a gentle rise. With this theory small fish woul die first being caught in tidal flow. Latter you would see the death of dinosaurs who could not swim, thus the allosaurus perishes first. Then as the water deepens you would see the death of larger predatory swimming animals, as again they get caught in tidal flow. So the basilosaurus perishes after the allosourous. I do not expect all sea creatures to be at the lower levels. Some of these large sea mammals may have got stuck in sediment. As they swim in to pray on food in the shallow waters. Which by now are deep enough in places to drown the dinosaurs.First off: the Basilosaurus is not a fish. It's a mammal, a precursor to the whale in fact.
And secondly, you said that the aquatic animals and the larger ones would die first in a global flood. The fact that the Basilosaurus is found above the Allosaurus, a terrestrial dinosaur, proves you wrong. It's that simple.
Hahaha, no. Just read up on how much water would be needed to flood the earth. Its just a myth.
We know that is not the case. You need to learn some basic science if you want to challenge any at all. Right now you are not doing your Christian duty.
Sorry that I am confusing you. I don't expect a sudden big flood to sweep over the land. It is a gentle rise. With this theory small fish woul die first being caught in tidal flow. Latter you would see the death of dinosaurs who could not swim, thus the allosaurus perishes first. Then as the water deepens you would see the death of larger predatory swimming animals, as again they get caught in tidal flow. So the basilosaurus perishes after the allosourous. I do not expect all sea creatures to be at the lower levels. Some of these large sea mammals may have got stuck in sediment. As they swim in to pray on food in the shallow waters. Which by now are deep enough in places to drown the dinosaurs.
Here is some more exploration of some of the problems if we do accept evolution. EG: Animal suffering before the fall? Do creationists, in reading Genesis 1 literally, have a serious problem with their own theology of creation because they've missed the theological messages in the passage by reading it literally? Etc.
No, you're not confusing me. Don't think that highly of yourself.
I have to ask: why do you take the claims of Bronze Age men, the Bible, over the fact of God's creation, the world around us? Why?
What can I say but all of it. There are no openings for flood water in the ocean. There is no place that three times the current volume of the ocean could fit. There is no place that three times the current volume of the ocean could have gone to. To believe in a flood you have to believe in a god that hid all evidence of this flood, a flood that would have left massive marks. There is not one mark from the alleged flood. That means you are in effect saying that your version of god lied.What evidence disproves what I say?
Really you don't find me laughing. There were a few only a pair of each meat eater. As I showed meat could be available after the flood. It is only logical that as food sources depleted these few animals would follow the food trail . The higher North they traveled on a daily basis the more food that would be available. Tell me what makes you think a norther migration is so silly using my flood model. Tell me where I am wrong. Snow leopards are one such example of an animal that stuck around, the snow wolf is another example. They migrated there some time, why not after the flood. Tell me logically how my theory is wrong.
Why not?
You make a lot water flow through a sand pan or trough, you get pretty good meandering. Continuous sheet flow will create channel flow.
Oh my! That is rich. Go ahead give it a shot.No he does not. I can help him.
Again no. Where would the meat eaters get their meat? Animal life that has been dead for a year will not be eaten even by a scavenger. And going north would not allow you to escape flood waters. A flood like this is based on elevation. The north end of a map is not any higher than the south end.
You have entirely missed my point I am talking post flood. When the animals came out of the ark. Frozen areas to the North would preserve food sources... Like putting your meat in the freezer does. I am saying for a time after the flood Carnivora would have migrated north, to get food.
And they don't support your claims. That looks more like a braided stream than a meander. I could not get that video to run on my computer. The flaw may be theirs:Researches are done by many students:
Winter only exists for part of the year at best. The meat would have already be rotten and inedible for carnivores when they got to it.
And they don't support your claims. That looks more like a braided stream than a meander. I could not get that video to run on my computer. The flaw may be theirs:
http://www.hqvdos.com/watch/YsQ7hW2fAEs/stream-table-meander-bend-run-emriver-em2.html
Also those are not "sand pans" That is a "stream table". When you make up your own terminology no one will understand what you are talking about. Also you can't directly scale up a stream table. You need to study how fast real meanders form and move:
http://eps.berkeley.edu/~bill/papers/Rowlandetal_ESPL_131.pdf
You are dealing with tens of years at the very least. And if you try to speed up the flow rate all you will do is flood the area and you are back to sheet flow and that will barely start a channel after forming braided streams at best.
Meanders form in slow moving streams. As much as you want them to be they do not form in floods.
In a sand box, meanders will form in just a few minutes.
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?