Ice Age?

Jet Black · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
I am not as versed in geology as you might think (just ask one of our TE friends )

I vouch for that, though as the following paragraph illustrates, there really is no need to vouch for the fact that he doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

The main difference between us it seem is that you believe that our soil come from rock (I presume you are talking the sandstone varieties that actually contain the "fossil record" whereas I believe that the soil formed the rock (sandstone containing the fossils from the flood) during the time of the Flood. Any formation that the waters of the Flood did to this "rock" it did so when it was semi solidified sediment so it did not require either an "explosive" force nor millions of years.

leccy · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
Consider this scenario:
*Heavy rains (40 days) wash soils from mouintain tops
*Water rises above mountains (remember that soils surrounding mountains still in place
*Sediments in water precipitates over earths surface including mountains.
*Water receeds not always taking sediments from mountain tops
*Sediments including life forms (shells ,fish, etc) become fossillised at the mountain top level

Now you have a bit of a problem there, because, as I explained, these fossils aren't sitting on the mountain tops, the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks form the mountains themselves. If, as you contend, the mountains were there prior to the flood, then the fossils and the rocks they are contained within simply cannot be flood deposits.

*Receeding waters remove soils and sediment layers from the "valleys" where the extremes of water flow exists
* Sediments are re deposited in lower altitudes as the aftermath leaves devastation of the laid down sediment layers (eg. Grand Canyon)

Ah, the Grand Canyon again, funny how these models always revolve around the Grand Canyon. At what stage in your flood model were the rocks which form the walls of the canyon deposited? In which environment were they deposited? I think that information on the nature of these deposits has been deiscussed in this forum before.

Rather than refute a Flood this evidence supports it.

Incorrect. The evidence specifically refutes your model for mountain formation being related to a global flood.

Grey Eminence · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
I am not as versed in geology as you might think (just ask one of our TE friends ) The main difference between us it seem is that you believe that our soil come from rock (I presume you are talking the sandstone varieties that actually contain the "fossil record" whereas I believe that the soil formed the rock (sandstone containing the fossils from the flood) during the time of the Flood. Any formation that the waters of the Flood did to this "rock" it did so when it was semi solidified sediment so it did not require either an "explosive" force nor millions of years.

Igneous - solidified magma, ex. granite
Metamorphic - sedimentary rocks exposed to enough heat and pressure to be reformed, ex. marble, gneiss
Sedimentary - sedimentary deposits that under pressure form stone, ex. sandstone, shale(s), bentonites

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock. In other words it is a rock formed from material that was sedimented.

*chuckles*

Jet Black is quite right in saying that you know absolutely nothing.

**

As an aisde, if soil forms rock... where does soil come from?

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Now you have a bit of a problem there, because, as I explained, these fossils aren't sitting on the mountain tops, the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks form the mountains themselves. If, as you contend, the mountains were there prior to the flood, then the fossils and the rocks they are contained within simply cannot be flood deposits.

That little scenario is explained by sediment laid down -then semi solidifies over period of time covered in flood (about one year) -then sediment surrounding the "mountain" is washed away by receeding flood waters - leaving what you see today to further dry out and solidify (containig fossils and all)

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Feb 1, 2005

I'm still giggling at the "what evidence to support the ice age" question, to be honest.

We know what a glaciated valley looks like, because we just hie ourselves to a nice working holiday in the alps and simply look.

Then we come back and go walking in Scotland, or the Lake District, or the Yorkshire Dales, and, if the mist lifts, we see exactly the same features as we did in the alps, but sans the glaciers.

Conclusion - there used to be glaciers here.

It's not that hard.

Jet Black · Feb 1, 2005

is that bottom one the horseshoe?

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Conclusion - there used to be glaciers here

or --Perhaps the world wide flood got to Scotland too

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Feb 1, 2005

Nah. Close, though, geographically. It's Cwm Idwal. Lovely route up to Glyder Fawr. Even better route down, if a bit scrambly, because of the foreshortened views of Pen yr ole wen; the incredibly steep (45 deg at one point!) path from Ogwen Cottage YH to the summit of Pen yr ole wen looks completely vertical from there - you keep expecting the people on it to free fall down into Llyn Ogwen.

Some lunatics come down Pen yr ole wen that way, but I am conscious of the fact that the Good Lord only gave me one set of knees and I'd like to keep them in serviceable order.

But I digress.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
or --Perhaps the world wide flood got to Scotland too

And a flood creates glacial corries that look exactly like the ones being produced by glaciers today how exactly?

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
And a flood creates glacial corries that look exactly like the ones being produced by glaciers today how exactly?

Has the prospect of a world wide flood 4500 years ago come into your possibilities or are you just trying to suggest alternatives to refute it?

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Grey Eminence said:
As an aisde, if soil forms rock... where does soil come from?

Soil was created by God from the beginning so that from the beginning plants could grow in the stuff so that from the beginning animals would have something to eat.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
Has the prospect of a world wide flood 4500 years ago come into your possibilities or are you just trying to suggest alternatives to refute it?

I'm not talking about me not accepting the flood. I'm talking about you not accepting ice ages.

The conventional explanation, accepted by 99.999999999% of geologists, for glacial corries is that they were caused by glaciers. A global flood is totally irrelevant to this topic. It's a bit like asking whether the prospect of aliens from Zorb blasting the corries out of the living rock with their phaser pistols in their ongoing galactic war against the Archcrags of Visgot comes into my possibilities. There's just no reason for bringing it in!

You really talk as if you think that mainstream geologists keep coming up against flood evidence and have to manufacture alternative explanations. This is absolutely not the case! Everything geologists find points away from a Noachian flood. The thing that gets me here is the arrogance you portray. You admit elsewhere that you know bugger all about geology, and yet you stand in judgement over geologists telling them what their evidence means and how naughty they are to interpret it differently!

Do you know what this reminds me of? A man goes to the doctor, and says "I'm dead".

The doctor says "no you're not - you're walking and talking."

"I don't care" says the man. "I know that I'm dead. You are misinterpreting the evidence. I'm really dead."

"OK" says the doctor. "Dead men don't bleed - do you agree?"

"Yes" says the man. "Dead men don't bleed."

So the doctor gets a scalpel out and cuts into the mans arm. The wound bleeds profusely.

"Convinced now?" says the doctor.

"Wow!" says the man. "Dead men do bleed"!

Methinks if you think these corries were caused by the flood you need to demonstrate how. And why flood generated corries look exactly like those created by glaciers, today, in the alps.

LifeToTheFullest! · Feb 1, 2005

A4C,

Have you ever been to Yosemite valley? If so, how do you explain the rock formations found there? There are massive amounts of granite rock that have been cut by glaciers. How does a flood model justify what is found there?

This is Half Dome. I've hiked it twice. It was obvious to me that water alone could not have done this. Please explain how a global flood selectively 'cuts' through granite, then somehow leaves the terrain on either side of the valley comparatively untouched.

Secondly, how does a global flood explain this, assuming it happened only 4000 years ago. In Yellowstone Park are two thousand feet of exposed strata which reveal eighteen successive forests wiped out by lava. The individual forests had to mature, and then be covered with lava. Before another forest could appear the lava would have to be weathered to form soil for trees to grow in. The amount of time involved is far more than the few thousand years flood geologists are able to allow.

Thirdly, gypsum and salt deposits are formed by the evaporation of sea water. One thousand feet of water yields 0.7 feet of gypsum. The fastest evaporating body of water known is the Dead Sea which evaporates ten feet of water a year. The fifteen hundred feet of gypsum in West Texas and New Mexico would then require 5 million feet of water evaporating over 500,000 years. Here again flood geology is refuted as it cannot allow this much time.

And lastly (albeit unrelated, just curious) , how did the Aborigines arrive in Australia and when?

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Given enough information a reasonable explanation can be given for every rock formation seen today and its relationship to the Flood.
I see corries as erosion of still soft sediment layers that "give way" in a certain manner after surrounding sediment is washed out by receeding Flood waters. it is interesting that you also get the back to back corries arising to a sharp peak Could you tell me how you could get enough ice on the peak to form that little number.
As for the sheared quartz rock face I am only surmising here but perhaps it might have been formed pre flood (or during the flood ) by an eruption where the rock was supported on soil or sediment. When the receeding waters washed out the "support" the overhang was too great and the rock sheared off under its own weight.

Secondly, how does a global flood explain this, assuming it happened only 4000 years ago. In Yellowstone Park are two thousand feet of exposed strata which reveal eighteen successive forests wiped out by lava. The individual forests had to mature, and then be covered with lava. Before another forest could appear the lava would have to be weathered to form soil for trees to grow in. The amount of time involved is far more than the few thousand years flood geologists are able to allow.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/yellowstone.asp

And lastly (albeit unrelated, just curious) , how did the Aborigines arrive in Australia and when?

We have had vietnamese land on these shores in boats that were considered less safe than a hollowed out tree stump so where is the problem?

DJ_Ghost · Feb 1, 2005

W Jay Schroeder said:
you notice that the person is from another country and may have a language problem, translating to english, But i think it is because you no he is right and see the problem envovled with millions of years.

Neither the language barrier not the possibility of him being right has anything to do with the accusation of plagiarism.

Ghost

Mechanical Bliss · Feb 1, 2005

He was better off claiming that the evidence did not support YECism/global flood and supported the conclusions of modern science because it was rearranged by demons.

Instead he has simply repeated the very same arguments he did in the past that were addressed several times. It's not an intellectually honest tactic to repeat things that were already refuted (e.g., he was given twelve features in the Grand Canyon inexplicable by a young earth and/or global flood and ignored it both times the list came up, but he uses the Grand Canyon as "proof" of a flood still...).

Asimov · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
I think you will also find that there were surface "tar" deposits in the middle east post flood (which was subject of Soddom and Gomorrah riches and downfall ) however the point is that pitch can be otherwise obtained making the argument that Noah used it possible.

I think you're just avoiding the argument.

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Mechanical Bliss said:
He was better off claiming that the evidence did not support YECism/global flood and supported the conclusions of modern science because it was rearranged by demons.

Instead he has simply repeated the very same arguments he did in the past that were addressed several times. It's not an intellectually honest tactic to repeat things that were already refuted (e.g., he was given twelve features in the Grand Canyon inexplicable by a young earth and/or global flood and ignored it both times the list came up, but he uses the Grand Canyon as "proof" of a flood still...).

I am not too sure who you are talking about but perhaps he is wise not to believe everything everybody has to say

A4C · Feb 1, 2005

Asimov said:
I think you're just avoiding the argument.

If my memory serves me right the "argument" was whether Noah could use pitch - well he could because you dont need fossil fuels to do it -end of "argument"

Mechanical Bliss · Feb 1, 2005

A4C said:
I am not too sure who you are talking about but perhaps he is wise not to believe everything everybody has to say

I think you already know I'm referring to you. Who else had recently made the claim that the physical evidence was manipulated by demons which is why it leads to the conclusion of modern science? No one else, certainly.

Furthermore, it's misrepresentative to suggest I say you believe everything everyone writes. I'm saying it's a dishonest practice to ignore falsifying evidence completely only to turn around and repeat the same argument again.

Case in point, I provided you with 12 reasons why the Grand Canyon disproves a young earth and/or global flood (which is why I know you knew I was writing about you otherwise you would not have replied) a couple of times. You ignored them every time I listed them or linked to them. Now you are claiming the Grand Canyon supports your model all over again even though you've been proved wrong on that point.

Bottom line: You have no business using the Grand Canyon to support your global flood argument, for example, until you address the features that have been brought up to you countless times before that falsify that global flood argument.

Not to mention the fact that there is not enough water on earth for such an event to occur in the first place.

Ice Age?

Jet Black

Guest

Active Member

Regular Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Trad Goth

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Objectivist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency