Global Flood Question

[HRE]

Bump.

 

[Valkhorn]

Thanks, HRE

 

[Blackmarch]

If there was a global flood... how come creationists associate proof of a global flood with many layers of sedimentation?

Don't single-event floods yeild only ONE layer of sediment?

How in the world can one global flood yeild thousands of layers of sediment in places?

(I've always wondered these... so I can't wait to be entertained with an answer)

Good question, I wonder that too, I think it be more along the lines of even if it did make a layer, it wouldn't all be the same because the sediment would not just be from one single spot, nor would it have been spread through the whole earth, or there wouldn't be much of it because of the time frame involved and also the area.

What do you think of that, what works and not etc...
That's my conclusion from my reasoning, and since I don't understand too much geological forces, influences and such, some input would be apreciated.

 

[A4C]

Good question, I wonder that too, I think it be more along the lines of even if it did make a layer, it wouldn't all be the same because the sediment would not just be from one single spot, nor would it have been spread through the whole earth, or there wouldn't be much of it because of the time frame involved and also the area.

What do you think of that, what works and not etc...
That's my conclusion from my reasoning, and since I don't understand too much geological forces, influences and such, some input would be apreciated.

Ahh - Good It is edifying to see somebody who aknowledges that a global flood is a bit more severe than a rainstorm in your back yard.

 

[HRE]

A4C...do I need to copy-paste the entire post, or will you still continue to dodge? You are quickly making a fool of yourself.

 

[HRE]

Guess what?


Bump.

 

[Valkhorn]

Yeah, I'd like to ask A4C, in4medforgod, and any other YEC a similar question as well.

What layer(s) correlate to a global flood?

Also I'm curious about this question:

If there was a global flood, then obviously there could not have been an ice cap before the flood or it would have immediately floated to the top or later was broken up by the force of the flooding. Also there would be some sort of evidence of a flood in some layer of the ice, right?

If not, then how could two miles of ice along with hundreds of thousands of layers (if not millions) be placed down on Antarctica and Greenland in only 6,000 years? Remember, some layers are millimeters thin or thinner, especially as you head towards the bottom of the ice core.

Also, if the water was in the 'fountains of the deep', how come we've never found any fountains or evidence of fountains that could contain as much water as is needed for a global flood? Remember, we'd need at least three to five times as much water as what is currently on Earth in order for there to be a global flood. If the water was in the Earth's crust, then it would have been VERY hot. Remember rocks miles beneath the surface of the earth are very hot.

Where did the water go afterwards? The vapor canopy idea is QUITE silly, as five times as much water as there is now would create so much water vapor that it would seriously alter the climate. That much water vapor would block a lot of sunlight too, and you'd end up with extremely thick cloud cover - possibly so thick that sunlight would possibly not make it through.

What vegetation did the animals on Noah's Ark even eat? A global flood would have wiped out most of the vegetation, especially if the water was very hot.

Furthermore, why would God punish the animals when they were not his special creation like man was according to the Bible? Why would he need to wipe the slate clean by some flood when he could have obviously just destroyed all life on this planet and start again?

Lastly, how come the only suggestion for such a silly idea (read: the global flood) is based from an ancient myth written in an ancient book? How come it's never realized that those who wrote the Bible did not know much about the world, and all references of this myth speak of it covering the 'known world', which wasn't very much for those people at the time.

The bottom line continues to be that the global flood myth has been dispelled and falsified many times. Although I suppose some people would rather be willfully ignorant than question faith - I mean after all where does it say one has to take the bible literally verse by verse to get into heaven? Besides, isn't an interpretation highly subjective? Who says one interpretation is right over the other?

Since this thread has also gone quiet, I'm led to assume that creationists just don't want to question their ideas or test their hypotheses. Nor do they want to listen to any ideas that are contrary to what they believe.

Such is the flaw of taking things too literally.

 

[A4C]

Yeah, I'd like to ask A4C, in4medforgod, and any other YEC a similar question as well.

What layer(s) correlate to a global flood?

Also I'm curious about this question:

If there was a global flood, then obviously there could not have been an ice cap before the flood or it would have immediately floated to the top or later was broken up by the force of the flooding. Also there would be some sort of evidence of a flood in some layer of the ice, right?

If not, then how could two miles of ice along with hundreds of thousands of layers (if not millions) be placed down on Antarctica and Greenland in only 6,000 years? Remember, some layers are millimeters thin or thinner, especially as you head towards the bottom of the ice core.

Also, if the water was in the 'fountains of the deep', how come we've never found any fountains or evidence of fountains that could contain as much water as is needed for a global flood? Remember, we'd need at least three to five times as much water as what is currently on Earth in order for there to be a global flood. If the water was in the Earth's crust, then it would have been VERY hot. Remember rocks miles beneath the surface of the earth are very hot.

Where did the water go afterwards? The vapor canopy idea is QUITE silly, as five times as much water as there is now would create so much water vapor that it would seriously alter the climate. That much water vapor would block a lot of sunlight too, and you'd end up with extremely thick cloud cover - possibly so thick that sunlight would possibly not make it through.

What vegetation did the animals on Noah's Ark even eat? A global flood would have wiped out most of the vegetation, especially if the water was very hot.

Furthermore, why would God punish the animals when they were not his special creation like man was according to the Bible? Why would he need to wipe the slate clean by some flood when he could have obviously just destroyed all life on this planet and start again?

Lastly, how come the only suggestion for such a silly idea (read: the global flood) is based from an ancient myth written in an ancient book? How come it's never realized that those who wrote the Bible did not know much about the world, and all references of this myth speak of it covering the 'known world', which wasn't very much for those people at the time.

The bottom line continues to be that the global flood myth has been dispelled and falsified many times. Although I suppose some people would rather be willfully ignorant than question faith - I mean after all where does it say one has to take the bible literally verse by verse to get into heaven? Besides, isn't an interpretation highly subjective? Who says one interpretation is right over the other?

Since this thread has also gone quiet, I'm led to assume that creationists just don't want to question their ideas or test their hypotheses. Nor do they want to listen to any ideas that are contrary to what they believe.

Such is the flaw of taking things too literally.

I see you have an extensive desire for knowledge on YECism
Perhaps after you have read through the various threads on these issues perhaps you might like to visit here

 

[HRE]

Drastic times call for drastic measures...

A4C, you have yet to even take a stab at the stratigraphy of Cloudland Canyon, and I maintain that it could not be formed by a flood. Here, once again (in case you lost it), is the entire post.

Let me give you a better visual than my blathering:

We have two images here. I'll talk about the top one first.

This shows the stratigraphy (layers) of an fossilized riverbed and its surroundings. The black to light-grey sequence of the bed relates to the coarseness of the grains we see inside one, solid rock (conglomerate). I should add that the boundaries would not be that definite; the layers of grey would mix a bit but still keep the same gradient.

Around it, the other shades of red indicate varying types of sedimentary rock, most likely sandstone. This would be caused be a marine regression, where an ocean recedes leaving behind marsh, then rivers, then forests. Thus, the deep burgundy is limestone (oceanic rock), followed by coal and shales (marshlands). After that are the river(s), and the red around it would probably be coarse sandstone from flood washes of the river, especially in its shallower (lighter) stages.

After that is pink: shale and some more (less fertile) coal from a forest that took on the fertile land of the former river.

Each of these layers would be very distinct.

So far, we have a fossilized river inside a series of layers that indicate a marine regression, each one showing a different environment. Let me emphasize: a distinct, traceable river inside an entirely separate series of layers.

Now, to add to the conundrum, we have three different types of fossils found in the sandstones and shales on the distinct, observable riverbanks. (when I say distinct, I mean you can tell where the riverbanks had a cave in at some point. These are detailed.)

The blue streaks are footprints of a creature dependent on water, probably a predator that caught fish (why? Because those footprints do not appear later, when the river is shallower and no game would survive) equivalent to our modern crocodile or bear.

As the river got shallower, we find a new set of prints of a creature that probably came to the river to drink, as it was getting shallower and not much substantial game remained. Examination of the sandstone layers for environmental traces would confirm or refute this. The creatures lived in the floodplain and early forest, like our modern deer.

Finally, in the forest environment, the river is pretty much entirely dried up. On top of it, we have a new set of footprints: an animal that was at home in the groundlevel of the forest, but not around rivers.

Follow so far? Good.

Now, the second image. We have this ancient riverbed that we would never have found had a canyon not cut through it, exposing it. In this image, you can see the riverbed and the canyon. The red indicates where you can see the riverbed on both sides of the canyon.

This is the old-earth, evolutionist's interpretation. If you have an alternate one that jives with these bolded facts, let me know.

One final thing. No more (for now), I promise.

The extrapolation on the footprints is extreme at best, and highly un-scientific, since no images of the prints nor the fossilized environment were given. If you intend to interpret it otherwise, feel free to call the prints whatever you will, as long as they are three separate types of prints.

 

[Valkhorn]

I see you have an extensive desire for knowledge on YECism

It's because I cannot understand how anyone can ignore all the evindence to the contrary. It's sort of a curiosity to me how someone can be so willfully ignorant.

As to you suggesting I go to AiG for answers. I have been around that site, and other than providing a lot of stuff to laugh at, it is a travesty. It provides no real evidence for what it claims, and furthermore the whole premise of the site is based on circular reasoning and priori arguments.

Just because you want something to be a certain way does not make it so. AiG only wants the Bible to be literal, so they will make up whatever evidence they want. After all, why does it even matter if in the end god is somehow going to make the ends meet?

Now, A4C, PLEASE answer my questions! You always dodge them, and honestly I don't think you can even try to answer them. Those that know a global flood did not occur can easily answer all of those questions in one way - 'it didn't happen'.

Why can't you come up with any answers? Somehow I knew you'd dodge the issue again.

 

[Blackmarch]

Another problem I think is is that we don't have all the knowledge and evidence for an absolute statement of fact, scientifically, for or against it. (currently it would seem to be more in favor against it, but keep in mind a "fact" doesn't always remain a "fact")

Questions, what are the fountains of the deep?,
What about other possibilities; the bible said the water rose 15 cubits (whether this was the sea level, or just the depth of the water over the whole or majority of the land?
While the valleys and lowerparts of the land could have been covered in deep water the mountains might have only been rained on hard eneugh to cover them with only an inch or less but they still would have been covered in water?
For the fountains of the deep = sea vents, how fast would water cool? (I don't personally think it means the sea vents, or the seavents only)
For the Icecaps, if the flood had covered them (would the ice be considered land?) they would not have necessarily risen to the surface; I have many times put Ice in a jug filled it with water, and the ice would still be stuck to the bottom.
Another problem is that the Bible just doesn't really describe How God does things, it's great for finding truths on how to find peace, truth, salvation, repentence and faith, but it is not a book on physics, math, chemistry, science, or geography.

 

[A4C]

Drastic times call for drastic measures...

A4C, you have yet to even take a stab at the stratigraphy of Cloudland Canyon, and I maintain that it could not be formed by a flood. Here, once again (in case you lost it), is the entire post.

Let me give you a better visual than my blathering:

We have two images here. I'll talk about the top one first.

This shows the stratigraphy (layers) of an fossilized riverbed and its surroundings. The black to light-grey sequence of the bed relates to the coarseness of the grains we see inside one, solid rock (conglomerate). I should add that the boundaries would not be that definite; the layers of grey would mix a bit but still keep the same gradient.

Around it, the other shades of red indicate varying types of sedimentary rock, most likely sandstone. This would be caused be a marine regression, where an ocean recedes leaving behind marsh, then rivers, then forests. Thus, the deep burgundy is limestone (oceanic rock), followed by coal and shales (marshlands). After that are the river(s), and the red around it would probably be coarse sandstone from flood washes of the river, especially in its shallower (lighter) stages.

After that is pink: shale and some more (less fertile) coal from a forest that took on the fertile land of the former river.

Each of these layers would be very distinct.

So far, we have a fossilized river inside a series of layers that indicate a marine regression, each one showing a different environment. Let me emphasize: a distinct, traceable river inside an entirely separate series of layers.

Now, to add to the conundrum, we have three different types of fossils found in the sandstones and shales on the distinct, observable riverbanks. (when I say distinct, I mean you can tell where the riverbanks had a cave in at some point. These are detailed.)

The blue streaks are footprints of a creature dependent on water, probably a predator that caught fish (why? Because those footprints do not appear later, when the river is shallower and no game would survive) equivalent to our modern crocodile or bear.

As the river got shallower, we find a new set of prints of a creature that probably came to the river to drink, as it was getting shallower and not much substantial game remained. Examination of the sandstone layers for environmental traces would confirm or refute this. The creatures lived in the floodplain and early forest, like our modern deer.

Finally, in the forest environment, the river is pretty much entirely dried up. On top of it, we have a new set of footprints: an animal that was at home in the groundlevel of the forest, but not around rivers.

Follow so far? Good.

Now, the second image. We have this ancient riverbed that we would never have found had a canyon not cut through it, exposing it. In this image, you can see the riverbed and the canyon. The red indicates where you can see the riverbed on both sides of the canyon.

This is the old-earth, evolutionist's interpretation. If you have an alternate one that jives with these bolded facts, let me know.

One final thing. No more (for now), I promise.

The extrapolation on the footprints is extreme at best, and highly un-scientific, since no images of the prints nor the fossilized environment were given. If you intend to interpret it otherwise, feel free to call the prints whatever you will, as long as they are three separate types of prints.

You raise a very interesting scenario and I want to go back and read it more carefully when I have time to do so. It looks very much like I thought it would be when the scenario was first mentioned to me and my thoughts stay the same -that is that the river pre-existed the flood and the "canyon" took a different route when the waters began to receed and cut through the wet sediment layers. I might add something to that though and that is that there could be devestating water flows during the flood as well as waters flow from higher lands .
So what do we have that would make water courses:
1) the original river /stream pre flood
2) the water during the flood flowing from higher ground
3) the water flowing during the receeding flood waters
Now it does not seem necessary to believe that these three need to take the same course and so we should expect to see evidence of all of them in the fossil record
Unlike being a pointer to not being a WW flood I would suggest that the scenario IS a pointer to WW flood and is rather evidence AGAINST an old earth

 

[HRE]

Are you seriously suggesting that a global flood laid down the neat sedimentation in the river within another forming strata and keep both strata independent, and then, within the same 40 days, all those sediments would have hardened to such an extent that they would not be marred when the canyon cut back through them?

This is, of course, in addition to the gradients, sediment types, and footprints.

 

[Valkhorn]

HRE, good response

Or better yet, we hear so much about YEC's telling us where the water came from, but where in the heck did it go?

*I can't wait to hear a response to that question*

I mean five times the water we have now just doesn't disappear or evaporate.

 

[A4C]

The flood offers an infinitely better explanation to these issues than anything else

 

[Ondoher]

The flood offers an infinitely better explanation to these issues than anything else

No it doesn't. It can't explain anything.

 

[A4C]

No it doesn't. It can't explain anything.

Well I must admit it causes people to come up with with some crazy proposals to try and explain away obvious flood evidence.

 

[Jet Black]

obvious flood evidence.

what obvious flood evidence?

 

[A4C]

what obvious flood evidence?

Sediment layers
Fossils
Fossil fuel
Grand Canyon (and its like)
"Sunken" cities
The Ark on Mt. Ararat
"Sink hole" craters
And these are just off the top of my head

 

[Herman Hedning]

Sediment layers
Fossils
Fossil fuel
Grand Canyon (and its like)
"Sunken" cities
The Ark on Mt. Ararat
"Sink hole" craters
And these are just off the top of my head

Perhaps that is your problem A4C, getting your arguments "off the top of your head". We all can indeed put forward all kinds of fantasies off the top of our heads, but they would just be that then, fantasies.

Time after time, people here have showed you real arguments why your fantasies are incorrect, using science, the bible, info from YEC organisations, and any other means thinkable. But you just act as if nothing was said. This is very strange, A4C, could you please tell us the reason why you're acting this way? As many of the regulars here has said, it is very rude to completely ignore the persons you are supposed to have an argument with.