Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.Did you think they were finished revealing truth?
I agree, however, Creation Science and Ken Ham says it does.Mr. Nye says he imagines you'll hear about the Grand Canyon later.
The Flood has nothing to do with the Grand Canyon.
I agree that Mr Nye didn't express that the best way, but the point he was making is that if the fossils in the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood is that we would not find them distributed in layers with no species out of order. In other words, if the Grand Canyon is a result of the flood then we should not only find fossils mixed (not separated) in all stratigraphic layers of the the Grand Canyon and throughout the entire world. The fact is we do not.He's expecting to find them concentrated at higher levels but what he neglected to understand, once all these animals are dead they are going to wash every which way as the water recedes. No way are any concentrated bodies going to stay where they died.
You should have read the article:
"Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands."
I agree that Mr Nye didn't express that the best way, but the point he was making is that if the fossils in the Grand Canyon were deposited by the flood is that we would not find them distributed in layers with no species out of order. In other words, if the Grand Canyon is a result of the flood then we should not only find fossils mixed (not separated) in all stratigraphic layers of the the Grand Canyon and throughout the entire world. The fact is we do not.
The stratigraphic layers of the Grand Canyon and the flood are two separate phenomenon. The layers indicate a series of sudden destructive events or epochs.
There is an enormous difference between the composition and formation of flood debris/layers, and that of the Grand Canyon. There is also a terrestrial layer with fossilized foot prints in between marine layers. Did the flood completely recede then flood again?The stratigraphic layers of the Grand Canyon and the flood are two separate phenomenon. The layers indicate a series of sudden destructive events or epochs. The 'canyon' is just the big ditch that reveals those epochs. The flood may indeed have begun the process of erosion. The remaining drainage system, the Colorado and other small rivers, may have finished the job.
That isn't how sedimentology works. There are layers of rock within the Grand Canyon that indicate exceptionally long periods of time of relatively calm water. There are various layers of limestone which are hundreds of feet thick. Those don't necessarily form in "sudden destructive events". There are different layers between these (shale layers) which also do not form in sudden destructive events. Shales are usually made up of clay sized minerals which are very small and take relatively calm water to fall out of and collect in a layer.
There is an enormous difference between the composition and formation of flood debris/layers, and that of the Grand Canyon. There is also a terrestrial layer with fossilized foot prints in between marine layers. Did the flood completely recede then flood again?
The ark would have still been hit by many of the same forces as the Wyoming, and the Wyoming needed heavy duty pumps to stay afloat. Far worse weather than the Wyoming ever hit would have sunk the Ark.I read the article. Apparently Nye didn't. The Wyoming served for 12 or so years of heavy service. It was a ship, not an ark. The ark was wider and deeper, and most importantly didn't need to navigate, which is the primary source of stress on a vessel. The bible account says the ark was "lifted up" not washed away, and "went on the flood" not against the water's current as ships must often do.
The flood barely affected the surface but may have begun the process of erosion. Those layers go back millennia before the flood.
The ark would have still been hit by many of the same forces as the Wyoming, and the Wyoming needed heavy duty pumps to stay afloat. Far worse weather than the Wyoming ever hit would have sunk the Ark.
The problem is that we see evidence of floods far weaker than the Flood would have been and we see no evidence at all of Noah's flood itself. This is a case of lack of evidence being evidence against.
I can understand a regional flood which does have supporting evidence, but global, all the physical evidence is just the opposite.The flood barely affected the surface but may have begun the process of erosion. Those layers go back millennia before the flood.
The breech of the Bosporus Straight increasing the size of the Black Sea and encroaching the Mountains of Ararat is supported by science.Science has never constructed a flood model using the actual bible narrative (sadly neither have many believers), something I believe they are loathe to do. 'Pandora's box' and all that.
The breech of the Bosporus Straight increasing the size of the Black Sea and encroaching the Mountains of Ararat is supported by science.
Noah's flood wouldn't have presented evidence of a single flood, but of many local floods with differing evidence left behind; just what you describe.
Science has never constructed a flood model using the actual bible narrative (sadly neither have many believers), something I believe they are loathe to do. 'Pandora's box' and all that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?