Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology

[Alessandro]

You dont get it you dont see it and wont with attitudes like that my friend.

 

[Aceldama]

Alessandro...Im just wondering. Do you honestly think that what you are doing is in someway helping people reject evolution and an old earth? Please answer me that question.

 

[Alessandro]

That is up to the person, I am not trying to change anybody's view or make anybody reject anything.
That is a choice one has to make for him/her self.

I also respect other people's views even though it does not go with what I see.

But being here and seeing such topics I cant help it but stand up for what I believe. And I also enjoy these kinds of discussions, even if I dont agree with some of them.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You aren't standing up for what you believe. You aren't answering questions, staying on topic, or addressing people's points. You are making creationists look like intellectually dishonest people. If you have nothing to say on topic, or if you aren't going to discuss and instead just say "I'm right because I say so and I will just ignore anything to the contrary" then don't bother.

There is a topic to this thread. There are points raised that are being ignored. Either stick to the topic, or quit with the rhetoric already.

 

[troodon]

But being here and seeing such topics I cant help it but stand up for what I believe.

But you aren't addressing the topics. This thread has a very specific purpose; for the discussion of the geological features mentioned in the OP and their implications in regard to a possible global flood. Mechanical Bliss posted 5 possible falsifications of a global flood and you seem to be ignoring them.

And I also enjoy these kinds of discussions

I'm not sure if anyone else does.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You dont get it you dont see it and wont with attitudes like that my friend.

Of course not. Anyone with the attitude that their beliefs should be based on the reality of the world and not a particular interpretation of an ancient religious test won't get it.

If there was anything in YEC to get you or someone would be able to come up with answers to the numerous falsifications of the worldwide flood myth that are posted on this board. Why don't you try to answer some of Mechanical Bliss's questions from the first post instead of just saying "you don't get it"? Could it be because these falsifications of YEC can't be answered? I think so. Once again maybe should put up or shut up. If it is just a matter of interpretation you should be able to provide logical interpretations based on YEC and the alleged worldwide flood instead of just posting Bible versus and saying "You don't get it". So where are they? Where are those altenate interpretations we keep hearing about but never see?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Alessandro]

Examples such as the gathering of different creatures in the one burial to me is evidence of the flood. Marine fossils on mountains is another and so on, these to me confirm the flood, to you something else.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Examples such as the gathering of different creatures in the one burial to me is evidence of the flood.

However, that's not what we actually see. You are ignoring anything specific and opting for superficial analyses. We see specific types of creatures buried together in stratified rocks of vastly different compositions with clear indicators of hiatuses in deposition, not succession. Furthermore, not all strata containing fossils are marine in origin.

Marine fossils on mountains is another and so on, these to me confirm the flood, to you something else.

Marine fossils aren't on mountains. They are in the rocks that comprise mountains. That is because mountains are formed by continental collisions where marine strata containing organisms rise due to plate tectonic processes. A flood doesn't explain why fossils are within the rocks. Furthermore, not all mountains actually are capped by rocks containing marine fauna. That shouldn't be the case either.

Most importantly there's not enough water for this to occur in the first place.

You are still ignoring the opening post of the thread and the questions in the second post.

 

[Alessandro]

That is what I see, and what you see.

Maybe the earth has no more water for such a flood but it did at one stage, the amount of water on the earth is evident of that. If the earth is all flattened out at one level the water would rise up on the surface at about 2.7km.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

What you see is wrong because you ignore evidence you don't like. You pick generalized statements that ignore specific observations that directly contradict your position.

Example: saying fossils on mountains substantiates your position. It is a false statement because fossils aren't ON mountains in the first place. Second, not all mountains have that feature as you seem to imply which is also false. It doesn't matter what you "see" because of what is.

If the earth had enough water at one point then where did it go?

The earth was not flat as long as humans have been on it (and much longer). That is well substantiated. If you are saying that the earth was flat a mere ~4000 years ago, then that is a physical impossibility. Mountain building is not a rapid process. Plate tectonism is not a rapid process. If it occurred that rapidly, the heat generated would boil all the water off the earth and kill every living thing on it. That's why you're wrong.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I would like to see someone explain how things would fossilize on tops of mountains following the global flood. The runoff and subsequent erosion of the mountaintop does not make it an area condusive to fossilization. If anything, the fossilization would take place where sediment gathers and the fossils would be burried along with material from the mountain.

I guess the "fossils on mountaintops" explanation sounds good to someone with no idea how fossilization occurs, but when you start to think about it, it makes no sense for such a thing to have occured during a global flood.

 

[Alessandro]

You dont get it, I wasnt saying that the earth was flat, I was saying if the earth is to have its surface flattened out water will rise up above it by about 2.7kms. The water is still there.

Also regarding the flood, if the flood was not global, dont you think that there should be more people around. Also, if the flood was not global, shouldn't the civilizations that have not been affected by such a flood be evident today, population wise, technologically, historically etc. the civilisations that kept on going without the flood interfering should be able to show that.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Also regarding the flood, if the flood was not global, dont you think that there should be more people around. Also, if the flood was not global, shouldn't the civilizations that have not been affected by such a flood be evident today, population wise, technologically, historically etc. the civilisations that kept on going without the flood interfering should be able to show that.

Actually, that's another falsification of the global flood.

Most YEC organizations I've seen peg the flood around 4300-4500 B.C. That's right in the middle of the 6th Dynasty in Egypt. They should have been wiped out, but their chronological history continues with nary a hiccup.

 

[Alessandro]

Egyptians came in after the flood, not before.
No explanation yet.

 

[Alessandro]

And as evolution would have it, the more we go back in time the less advanced we become, correct?
That is not evident as such, pre flood civilisation was far more advanced than later on.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Egyptians came in after the flood, not before.
No explanation yet.

So you are saying that the current accepted chronological histories of Egypt is wrong? Care to expand on that?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You dont get it, I wasnt saying that the earth was flat, I was saying if the earth is to have its surface flattened out water will rise up above it by about 2.7kms. The water is still there.

That's exactly what I was saying. It is a physical impossibility. Reread my post.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

And as evolution would have it, the more we go back in time the less advanced we become, correct?
That is not evident as such, pre flood civilisation was far more advanced than later on.

Substantiate your claim or retract your bald assertion.

Furthermore, evolutionary biology isn't necessarily the same as technological evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And as evolution would have it, the more we go back in time the less advanced we become, correct?

Evolution has nothing to do with it. Historical data of human civilization is what we would be looking at.

That is not evident as such, pre flood civilisation was far more advanced than later on.

Such as... ?

 

[Alessandro]

Examples such as an analog computing device or "computer" was recovered from a ship which had sunk in the Aegean Sea in the first century BC. The device incorporated very sophisticated gears, even differential gears, a type not re-discovered until modern times as you know.