My Layering Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Your wordplay was actually unusually clever.

I'm glad you got it.

If he wants to call me a pope, I'll call him a chancellor.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I feel like we have reached maximum confusion. My job here is done.

There's always more you can do...

 

[SkyWriting]

A world wide flood that covered everything to a minimum depth of 50 feet would create enormous tidal forces and currents. Thes swirling across the globe would errode thousands of feet of mateial and deposit it else where.
The geological colum shows what would be expected after a global flood. Layers of different typews of rock sort according to its different weights and containing those creaters whose lack of mobility limited there options to escape the flood water.

That is assuming that the flood was a natural event
that had natural effects on the planet. Becasue we
begin with the premise that it was not a natural event
we don't have to assume it had "natural" results.

Following this reasoning, it's possible that life did
not "drown" in a naturalistic fashion. Jesus could
walk on water and He calmed storms. It's possible
that the flood was not a "normal" flood at all.

 

[Tolworth John]

That is assuming that the flood was a natural event
that had natural effects on the planet. Becasue we
begin with the premise that it was not a natural event
we don't have to assume it had "natural" results.

Following this reasoning, it's possible that life did
not "drown" in a naturalistic fashion. Jesus could
walk on water and He calmed storms. It's possible
that the flood was not a "normal" flood at all.

I accept that the flood was caused by God's direct action and that is not a 'natura' effect, but once caused water would follow the normal rules of hydrodynamics etc.
A global flood capable of depositing sediment over a mile deep has no need of supernatural causes of death.
The reasonable explaination is the flood was 'normal', that is 'normal' for a golbal flood that destroys all life and rips the world to pieces.

 

[Tolworth John]

No it doesn't.

I find your explaination why a global flood would not cause enormos errosion highly unconvincing.

 

[quatona]

That is assuming that the flood was a natural event
that had natural effects on the planet. Becasue we
begin with the premise that it was not a natural event
we don't have to assume it had "natural" results.

Following this reasoning, it's possible that life did
not "drown" in a naturalistic fashion. Jesus could
walk on water and He calmed storms. It's possible
that the flood was not a "normal" flood at all.

Yeah, maybe it wasn´t even normal water but some supernatural fluid.

 

[Larniavc]

I find your explaination why a global flood would not cause enormos errosion highly unconvincing.

It would. Just not in the patterns we see.

No non-Abrahamic religious person thinks the Noachian flood actually happened.

 

[Dave RP]

It would. Just not in the patterns we see.

No non-Abrahamic religious person thinks the Noachian flood actually happened.

To be fair I reckon that more than 50% of Abraham religious people also do not think the flood happened as described in the bible, it's just plain ludicrous and most recognise that.

 

[SkyWriting]

I accept that the flood was caused by God's direct action and that is not a 'natura' effect, but once caused water would follow the normal rules of hydrodynamics etc.
A global flood capable of depositing sediment over a mile deep has no need of supernatural causes of death.
The reasonable explaination is the flood was 'normal', that is 'normal' for a golbal flood that destroys all life and rips the world to pieces.

Scientifically speaking, perhaps. But one must consider:
Water Baptism
Water of Separation or of Uncleanness
Water: Changed to Wine
Water: Creation of
Water: God Originally: Created the Firmament to Divide
Water: Jesus Walks Upon
Water: Brought from the Jaw-Bone of an Ass
Water: Brought from the Rock
Water: Consumed by Fire from Heaven
Water: Divided and Made to Stand on Heap
Water: Healing Powers Communicated To
Water: Iron Made to Swim In
Water: Turned Into Blood
Water: Turned Into Wine
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To Jehoshaphat's Army
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To Samson
Water: Miraculously Supplied: To the Israelites
Water: Wearing the Hardest Substances

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, maybe it wasn´t even normal water but some supernatural fluid.

I'm just saying it's possible.

 

[Dave RP]

I'm just saying it's possible.

That's not a photo f the actual event you know - the description of walking on water is not intended to be taken literally, it is allegorical. Even his disciple had a decent go at water walking at first, so clearly the miracle is not universal to jesus, it's just a parable.

 

[Tolworth John]

Scientifically speaking, perhaps. But one must consider

Why? It was a massive release of water that resulted in all the water laid sedimentary rocks that cover the earth.
The only supernatural eliment was the timing of the cause, after that it was water doing what water does.

 

[Astrophile]

Take a look at this picture:

Where did all the dirt come from that covered up each layer of representative life?

Erosion of the rocks that were there already.

 

[Astrophile]

I'm not sure how deep fossils go, but imagine only ten feet around the earth.

This is a wild under-estimate, as you would know if you had ever looked at a rock outcrop. There are ten fossiliferous geological systems: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene. (A geological system consists of the rocks deposited during the geological period of the same name.)

All these systems have maximum thicknesses of several kilometres (1 km = 3280 feet); some of them (for example the Devonian, Carboniferous, Jurassic and Cretaceous systems) have maximum thicknesses of more than 10 km, or more than 33,000 feet. These great thicknesses of fossiliferous rocks were derived from the erosion over very long periods of pre-existing rocks, including older fossiliferous rocks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Erosion of the rocks that were there already.

Thank your for getting the thread back on track.

 

[AV1611VET]

All these systems have maximum thicknesses of several kilometres (1 km = 3280 feet);

What was the radius of the earth at one time?

 

[pshun2404]

Though I do not find this ever-growing earth IS what evolutionists claim (see post 19), if the gradual accumulation of more and more layers was the theory (i go with the re-shifting and distribution theory) then going back in time would leave the earth a very tiny planetoid and one would have to ASSUME that for billions of years the earth was continually bombarded with a sufficient amount of dust and debris which somehow has stopped over the past 10,000 years or so...which is not fathomable in either camp!

 

[Astrophile]

What was the radius of the earth at one time?

Probably about 6371 km (3959 miles), the same as it is now. There is no reason to think that it has changed measurably during geological time.

 

[Astrophile]

Though I do not find this ever-growing earth IS what evolutionists claim (see post 19), if the gradual accumulation of more and more layers was the theory (i go with the re-shifting and distribution theory) then going back in time would leave the earth a very tiny planetoid and one would have to ASSUME that for billions of years the earth was continually bombarded with a sufficient amount of dust and debris which somehow has stopped over the past 10,000 years or so...which is not fathomable in either camp!

Geologists do not think that the Earth has been continuously growing by the accretion of material from space. Instead there is a complete rock cycle (what you call the re-shifting and distribution theory), in which rocks are eroded, particularly from mountainous areas, the eroded material is transported to lowland areas and to the sea, where it is deposited as sediments. Over long periods of time (typically tens or hundreds of millions of years), sediments accumulate so that the deepest parts of the sedimentary pile are transformed into sedimentary rocks. With deeper burial they may be transformed into metamorphic rocks, or melted to form igneous rocks. Uplift brings these rocks back to the surface, where they are eroded, thus completing the cycle.

You can find out more by googling 'rock cycle'. I recommend the Geological Society website Geological Society - The Rock Cycle (KS3), which has a detailed description of all the stages in the cycle, with an animated version and with photographs illustrating the different stages.

Finally, at present the Earth accretes about 20,000 tons of material from space per year. If this rate has been roughly constant for the last 3.5 billion years, the total accretion over that time has been about 10 billionths of the Earth's present mass, sufficient to form a layer about 5 centimetres or 2" thick over the whole Earth.

 

[HiEv]

Though I do not find this ever-growing earth IS what evolutionists claim (see post 19),

Nobody is claiming an "ever-growing earth" in the manner you think, not even the person in the post you're referring to.

if the gradual accumulation of more and more layers was the theory (i go with the re-shifting and distribution theory)

These aren't two different ideas. The layers are produced through the movement of tectonic plates, which raised mountains and caused volcanoes, followed by natural processes of erosion which redistributed that material churned up from underground.

then going back in time would leave the earth a very tiny planetoid and one would have to ASSUME that for billions of years the earth was continually bombarded with a sufficient amount of dust and debris which somehow has stopped over the past 10,000 years or so...which is not fathomable in either camp!

Or not.

Sometimes if what you think someone was saying sounds ridiculous, maybe the problem was that you just weren't understanding what they were actually trying to say.