Scientific proof of flood.

[paulrob]

you say the rock layers are water markings? like rings in a bathtub? oi vey! they are oviously not, you should go check out the canyon and see it up close.

Actually they are sediment layers, not rings. The fact that they look like someone's bathtub is coincidental.

Every evolutionist will tell you the canyon walls are sedimentary rock, and no creationist disputes that. What the evolutionist cannot twll you is how the sedimentary layers were all laid down with minimal interlayer erosion - as long periods of time would require. On the other hand, precipitating sand and lime over a several hundred year period would produce the effect we see today. take a look at Mt. St. helens, a 1/40 scale model of the Grand Canyon, created in front of the worlds media in 14 days.

 

[notto]

Actually they are sediment layers, not rings. The fact that they look like someone's bathtub is coincidental.

Every evolutionist will tell you the canyon walls are sedimentary rock, and no creationist disputes that. What the evolutionist cannot twll you is how the sedimentary layers were all laid down with minimal interlayer erosion - as long periods of time would require. On the other hand, precipitating sand and lime over a several hundred year period would produce the effect we see today. take a look at Mt. St. helens, a 1/40 scale model of the Grand Canyon, created in front of the worlds media in 14 days.

A few questions about your mount saint helens comparison.
1) how many different types of sediment are represented there?
2) how many layes of developed soil in those layers at Mt. St. Helens?
3) Any buried animal tracks or eroded river beds in between those layers?
4) Where did mount saint helens lay down limestone or sandstone?
5) Where did mount saint helens erode through what is clearly existing rock?

The comparison of the geologic column to Mt. St. Helens is so simplistic it is laughable.

Name three similarities between Mount Saint Helens and a specific part of the geologic column. You can pick any part of the geologic column you want. Just point us to what you are actually comparing.

 

[3Amig(o)s]

When did the SOLID ROCK that these formations are carved out of form?

Gen 7;11-12
"11 When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. 12 The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights."

It's really hot down there. The Rock down there WOULD be liquid if it were not for the extreme presure causing it to remain solid. If the water burst forth from the deep, it would be hot enough to melt rock.

 

[notto]

Gen 7;11-12
"11 When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky. 12 The rain continued to fall for forty days and forty nights."

It's really hot down there. The Rock down there WOULD be liquid if it were not for the extreme presure causing it to remain solid. If the water burst forth from the deep, it would be hot enough to melt rock.

Thanks, I needed the laugh. Just a hint - eroding rock is not the same as liquid rock and water that hot, won't be liquid in order to melt or erode the rock, it would be steam.

 

[Girl_4_God]

By the way, I don't see where that article came from. If it is online, could you please post the url? If it is not on-line, could you please tell us what book or magazine it came from?

I wrote it.

Jenny

 

[Girl_4_God]

look at my books and come post again.

Here are some I have read:
Matter and Motion an 8th grade text book.
Observing God's World a 6th grade text book.
Understanding God's World a 4th grade text book.
The Great Dinosoure Mystery and the Bible.
Investigating God's Orderly world.
Science Order and Reality a 7th grade text book.

And here are some that I am reading right now:
The Creation-Evolution Controversy
The Origin of Life
The Problems of Evolution
Darwin on Trial

If this is not what you wanted to here then give me some titles of some good books you would recomend.

Jenny

 

[armed2010]

Here are some I have read:
Matter and Motion an 8th grade text book.
Observing God's World a 6th grade text book.
Understanding God's World a 4th grade text book.
The Great Dinosoure Mystery and the Bible.
Investigating God's Orderly world.
Science Order and Reality a 7th grade text book.

And here are some that I am reading right now:
The Creation-Evolution Controversy
The Origin of Life
The Problems of Evolution
Darwin on Trial

If this is not what you wanted to here then give me some titles of some good books you would recomend.

Jenny

Did you invade Hovinds library or something? The first thing I suggest you read is an actual science book on biology.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Did you invade Hovinds library or something? The first thing I suggest you read is an actual science book on biology.

I suppose by actual you mean non-christian?

Jenny

 

[notto]

I suppose by actual you mean non-christian?

Jenny

I would start with one written by a biologists, Christian or not.

 

[gluadys]

Do you have any idea how much water there is on the earth? If you read the Biblical account, you'll find that the earth was very smooth before the flood, that the lakes and rivers were very shallow by todays standards. If you read again in the Bible, as a result of the flood, mountains were formed (pushed up), and sea valleys opened. No problem at all about where the water went. Science proves without a doubt that the highest peaks in the world all have been underwater - worldwide. And Biblically, the mantle of the earth was shaken, causing volcanos, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. All these cause erosion, "hide" water, and result in the formations we see today.

Do you have a bible with invisible writing in it that you have restored to visibility?

Because I have several bibles in different versions and not one of them mentions these details.

The earth was smooth
Lakes and rivers were very shallow
The mantle of the earth was shaken
Volcanoes
tsunamis

So show me these from the bible or 'fess up that you are adding to scripture stuff that ain't there.

 

[corvus_corax]

So show me these from the bible or 'fess up that you are adding to scripture stuff that ain't there.

(emphasis mine)
Is it just me, or is this becoming more and more common on these boards?

 

[Girl_4_God]

I would start with one written by a biologists, Christian or not.

Alright, I already have one of those that I read out of a lot.
Jenny

 

[gluadys]

I wrote it.

Jenny

Yes, Arikay showed me on another thread where you called it your report.

Because you called it research here I was wondering where it had come from.

Of course, the criticisms still apply. It seems you are getting most of your information from people who are either very ignorant or don't mind lying to you.

 

[Girl_4_God]

Yes, Arikay showed me on another thread where you called it your report.

Because you called it research here I was wondering where it had come from.

Of course, the criticisms still apply. It seems you are getting most of your information from people who are either very ignorant or don't mind lying to you.

Okay you all have asked me why I think evolution is a lie. Now i'm asking you why you think creation is a lie?

Jenny

 

[gluadys]

I suppose by actual you mean non-christian?

Jenny

How about a book by a Christian who is a biologist?

It is called Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Millar.

 

[gluadys]

Okay you all have asked me why I think evolution is a lie. Now i'm asking you why you think creation is a lie?

Jenny

I don't think creation is a lie. Evolution does not deny that God created.

What I think is that creationism is a lie.

Creationism treats the bible as if it is a scientific textbook and must be interpreted like a science report with every word taken to be literal fact. Young earth creationism is the most extreme. Based on biblical genealogies it claims (as Bishop Ussher did back in the 19th century) that creation took place about 6,000 years ago, that everything from the most distant star to human beings was created in just 6 days, that every kind of life was created instantaneously and separately and that in the days of Noah there was a world-wide flood in which every person and animal not on the ark died.

Yet observation of the world God made for us tells us that the universe came into being over 12 billion years ago, the solar system and the earth are about 4.5 billion years old, life has existed on earth and evolved for at least 3.8 billion years, kinds are not separately created but related via common ancestors and no flood has ever covered the whole planet at the same time.

And no matter what anyone tells you, this is not a mere matter of differing interpretations of the same evidence. When you include all the evidence, not skipping any that is uncomfortable, all of these things are as solidly supported as anything ever is in science, based on real, observable evidence that can only have come from the hand of God since none of it was made by humans.

You know the psalmist tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. (Ps. 19:1) And what the heavens and the earth tell us is that they are very, very old, that all life is related and that the flood of Noah's day did not cover the whole planet. So was the Psalmist wrong? Are God's creations lying to us? I don't think so.

Does that mean God's other book, the bible, is lying to us? No. The problem comes from treating the bible as a kind of book it never claimed to be: a science book. It is not the bible that is wrong, but the way creationists say it should be understood that is wrong.

There are other ways of letting the bible speak to us, ways that are more consistent with how people of ancient times understood the bible--people who actually wrote the passages of the bible. They were not scientists. They were prophets, and poets, and dramatists and storytellers and lawgivers and farmers and visionaries and philosophers. And they wrote laws and poems and songs and visions and oracles and gospels and letters and proverbs and philosophic treatises. And since that is the way it was written, that is the way we should read it.

 

[paulrob]

The commonly accepted idea that the continents drifted apart from one big content is suggested because the continents appear to fit together relatively well.

Ironically, on a map they do. But when you include the continental shelves, ie from a fishing chart, etc - they don't fit together very well at all. The idea of continental drift originated with that observation, but there are some serious problems with the theory.

 

[paulrob]

Out of curiosity, why did the erosion cut such a windy canyon?

I think this could be contributed to by lava pushing up through the soft sandstone during the flood period and then hardening. The water would change its course around the harder basalt, etc taking the path of least resistance.

Although I am no expert in geology, it might well be that there were huge boulders left over from the lake breaching - where I live many of the "mountains" are city block (or bigger) sized rock piled on top of each other.

 

[HRE]

I think this could be contributed to by lava pushing up through the soft sandstone during the flood period and then hardening. The water would change its course around the harder basalt, etc taking the path of least resistance.

Then where is the basalt?

 

[paulrob]

In your picture, (Of Bryce Canyon) the formations are far to delicate to be formed by the destructive forces of a global ocean, the "hoodoos" as they are called, would have been destroyed. It was a mixture of water, ice, and a long period of time. It didn't happen instantly.

I doubt that most creationists would believe either of your statements: that this all happened instantly, or that it was a global ocean that caused it.

The Hoodoos are formed by soft rock being overlaid by harder rock, and then being eroded by wind water, etc. I disagree that ice had a major part, because Ice removes rock much harder than sandstone, and removed it completely.

I think the cause of these hoodoos is largely water, but water carrying a lot of abrasive - ie sand and gravel - a scenario quite in keeping with the breech of a lake bed, and half a continent of water flowing out, increasing the size of the canyon where the breech ocurred.

Obviously, water carying sand is much more abrasive then clear water, and would erode the material very much faster.

I travel regularly to places where rather recent water canyons have carved huge holes in basalt and other igneous rocks which are much harder than sandstone, particularly newly laid sandstone.

And a steady stream of gritty water can be terribly abrasive.

For a modern example look at the Tuttle River Canyon at Mt. St. Helens - all that canyon cutting took place in a matter of weeks - and it is a great scale model of the Grand Canyon. This shows that canyons such as the Grand, and erosion such as we see at the Grand, can indeed happen in very short order - relatively speaking.

I cannot post pictures yet, but there is a concept map of Grand lake and Hopi lake at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview9.html

Scroll w a y down.