Ice Age?

[leccy]

You nearly got what I said except the covered/surround bit

Okay. Which do you prefer: the mountains were there before the flood and covered by a great thickness of soil

or

the mountains were there before the flood, but were surrounded by a great thickness of soil?

 

[A4C]

Okay. Which do you prefer: the mountains were there before the flood and covered by a great thickness of soil

or

the mountains were there before the flood, but were surrounded by a great thickness of soil?

Would you mind making two diagrams of the choices I have so I know exactly what is on your mind and whether I could agree with your thoughts. Thanks

 

[leccy]

Would you mind making two diagrams of the choices I have so I know exactly what is on your mind and whether I could agree with your thoughts. Thanks

Those aren't my thoughts, they are my understanding of your model. Probably best for you to draw it as it's your model.

You've said that the mountains weren't pushed up. You've said that the mountains were always there, but were surrounded by soil and the receeding waters have redistributed that soil to the lower altitudes..

Do you mean that the pre-flood surface of the Earth was essentially almost flat, consisting of rocky mountains that we see today, completely covered by thick soil with nothing of the mountain showing but the ground level being much higher than the present day tops of those mountains? Or do you mean that the Earth consisted of low hills, representing just the tops of the rocky mountains sticking out through the thick soils that surrounded them, with the soils filling in the lower bits?

 

[A4C]

Or do you mean that the Earth consisted of low hills, representing just the tops of the rocky mountains sticking out through the thick soils that surrounded them, with the soils filling in the lower bits?

Fundamentaly that is what i meant as you will recal I used "surrounded" not "covered" Whether "sticking out" or not depends on other factors but I might even suggest mountain tops being at least covered by a limited amount of soils (as you would expect on a "rolling hill" type terrain.)

 

[leccy]

Fundamentaly that is what i meant as you will recal I used "surrounded" not "covered" Whether "sticking out" or not depends on other factors but I might even suggest mountain tops being at least covered by a limited amount of soils (as you would expect on a "rolling hill" type terrain.)

So choice #2, the low hills, perhaps with a thin covering of soil over the mountain tops as in a rolling hill terrain.

Your model then would it attribute the present day topography to the washing away of those soils by the receeding waters of the flood and their being deposited at lower altitudes, leaving the resistant, hard rocks of the mountains behind?

 

[A4C]

So choice #2, the low hills, perhaps with a thin covering of soil over the mountain tops as in a rolling hill terrain.

Your model then would it attribute the present day topography to the washing away of those soils by the receeding waters of the flood and their being deposited at lower altitudes, leaving the resistant, hard rocks of the mountains behind?

It certainly is a proposition worth considering

 

[leccy]

Trouble is that it isn't a proposition that has any supporting evidence for it in the rocks of this planet. Indeed there are mountains (no pun intended) of evidence that it isn't a workable model.

 

[A4C]

Trouble is that it isn't a proposition that has any supporting evidence for it in the rocks of this planet. Indeed there are mountains (no pun intended) of evidence that it isn't a workable model.

Please refer me to some

 

[GeoffCC]

So did ice cover the whole earth and there is just a bit left at the poles now eh?
And this lasted millions of years did it?
Was there any problems caused to any life on earth during that time?

I think it only descended from the poles to about mid continental Europe. It certainly would have created hardships for life at that time, which I imagine would have needed to migrate closer to the equator until the ice sheet receded.
Geoff

 

[leccy]

Please refer me to some

Sure.

You stated that the mountains were always there.

You stated that the pre-flood surface of the earth was as in the "low hills" model, with just the tops of the present day mountain peaks surrounded by thick soils, which were washed away to lower altitudes by the receeding waters of the flood.

So it clear that the rocks forming those mountains are older than the flood, is it not? After all you were quite clear that they were always there.

Many of those mountains, including some of the world's highest peaks, are formed of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks. Examples include the Himalayas

http://www.geoahead.com/strati/india/index.cfm?page=himalayas_tethyan

and the Canadian Rockies

http://esw.agiweb.org/imagebank/search/lightbox2.html?ID=h2ae33

to name but two


That means that those mountain peaks have fossils within and throughout the mountains. The fossils form the very fabric of some of those mountains, most spectacularly in the case of limestones where their skeletons make up the bulk of the rock. The fossils include fossils of both marine organisms and non marine organisms, indicating that some of them lived in the sea and some of them lived on the land. There are trace fossils of organisms that lived in the sea and trace fossils of organisms that lived on the land. these are embedded within those mountains.

Most importantly, from the point of view of your model, because those mountains were always there and they formed a part of the pre-Flood landscape in your model, albeit covered or surrounded by soil, those fossils are the fossilised remains of organisms that were alive, died and were fossilised before the flood.

That means the fossils and the rocks in which they occur in those mountains cannot be attributed to the Biblical flood. The only deposits which your model could attribute to the Biblical flood would be the reworked soils at lower altitudes.

 

[Asimov]

Okay. Which do you prefer: the mountains were there before the flood and covered by a great thickness of soil

or

the mountains were there before the flood, but were surrounded by a great thickness of soil?

....sooo, where did the soil go?

 

[gluadys]

....sooo, where did the soil go?

Good question. I don't understand how soil could be redistributed to lower altitudes if there were no lower altitudes to begin with.

 

[A4C]

Sure.

You stated that the mountains were always there.

You stated that the pre-flood surface of the earth was as in the "low hills" model, with just the tops of the present day mountain peaks surrounded by thick soils, which were washed away to lower altitudes by the receeding waters of the flood.

So it clear that the rocks forming those mountains are older than the flood, is it not? After all you were quite clear that they were always there.

Many of those mountains, including some of the world's highest peaks, are formed of fossiliferous sedimentary rocks. Examples include the Himalayas

http://www.geoahead.com/strati/india/index.cfm?page=himalayas_tethyan

and the Canadian Rockies

http://esw.agiweb.org/imagebank/search/lightbox2.html?ID=h2ae33

to name but two


That means that those mountain peaks have fossils within and throughout the mountains. The fossils form the very fabric of some of those mountains, most spectacularly in the case of limestones where their skeletons make up the bulk of the rock. The fossils include fossils of both marine organisms and non marine organisms, indicating that some of them lived in the sea and some of them lived on the land. There are trace fossils of organisms that lived in the sea and trace fossils of organisms that lived on the land. these are embedded within those mountains.

Most importantly, from the point of view of your model, because those mountains were always there and they formed a part of the pre-Flood landscape in your model, albeit covered or surrounded by soil, those fossils are the fossilised remains of organisms that were alive, died and were fossilised before the flood.

That means the fossils and the rocks in which they occur in those mountains cannot be attributed to the Biblical flood. The only deposits which your model could attribute to the Biblical flood would be the reworked soils at lower altitudes.

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
*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)

Rather than refute a Flood this evidence supports it.

 

[A4C]

....sooo, where did the soil go?

It would mostly end up in the sea coveing the living organisms that formed the fossil fuel deposits. This would account for the raising of eventual sea level and the redistribution of the land sea division

 

[Asimov]

It would mostly end up in the sea coveing the living organisms that formed the fossil fuel deposits. This would account for the raising of eventual sea level and the redistribution of the land sea division

Oooooook, hold a minute there....

Pre-flood conditions:

1)mountains surrounded by soil to whatever height is convenient for YEC's...

This is obviously an attempt at leveling out the playing field. am I cooorrect?

Ok...so Mt. Everest (30,000ft.) needs to be level with the rest of the world.

That's A LOT of soil.

Now...if this is just soil, the waters of the flood would quickly turn into a muddy soup.

Because you also forget to include the water level of the preflood oceans.

 

[Asimov]

It would mostly end up in the sea coveing the living organisms that formed the fossil fuel deposits. This would account for the raising of eventual sea level and the redistribution of the land sea division

Second problem, what did Noah use to cover the ark, if there were no fossil fuels? It says he used pitch.

 

[A4C]

Second problem, what did Noah use to cover the ark, if there were no fossil fuels? It says he used pitch.

Pitch is not a product of fossil fuels

 

[Jet Black]

indeed, pitch can be manufactured from living plants with not too much difficulty. there are different sorts of pitch though, some which require fossil fuels.

 

[Asimov]

Pitch is not a product of fossil fuels

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

כּפר
kôpher
ko'-fer
From H3722; properly a cover, that is, (literally) a village (as covered in); (specifically) bitumen (as used for coating), and the henna plant (as used for dyeing); figuratively a redemption price: - bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, sum of money, village.


bi·tu·men
n.
Any of various flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and other substances, occurring naturally or obtained by distillation from coal or petroleum, that are a component of asphalt and tar and are used for surfacing roads and for waterproofing.

 

[A4C]

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

כּפר
kôpher
ko'-fer
From H3722; properly a cover, that is, (literally) a village (as covered in); (specifically) bitumen (as used for coating), and the henna plant (as used for dyeing); figuratively a redemption price: - bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, sum of money, village.


bi·tu·men
n.
Any of various flammable mixtures of hydrocarbons and other substances, occurring naturally or obtained by distillation from coal or petroleum, that are a component of asphalt and tar and are used for surfacing roads and for waterproofing.

Tell me a definition of pitch from a 4500 y/o dictionary
Thank you Mr Black for confirming that fossil fuels are not required to make pitch