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.
It's not harrassment, but you'd like it to be. If you can manage to picture yourself standing against the vast "evil atheist conspiracy" you can pretend you're a martyr for Christ, which is your entire purpose in posting.A4C said:Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment
The basis of this statement deals with the indications of a water level erosion mark on mountain peak rock formations.nvxplorer said:The title of this thread is the height of irony and hypocricy.
I wonder how many times threads such as these were followed by threads decrying science.
Scientific Proof of Flood.
Science is Worthless and Flawed.
Science is a Religion.
Science Requires Faith!
duordi said:Scientific proof of flood.
Here is an overview of my assumptions and conclusions.
A picture is attached at the bottom
A large body of water that is decreasing in height will cause this erosion by wave action.
Erosion removes material based on its makeup at the location of the water surface wave action.
The surface water does most of the work and erosion at a level will depend on how long the water surface remained there.
As the water level recedes the surface water waves undercut the edges of the structure.
If the structure is capable of supporting its new form it may be a vertical cliff or even have a large top on a slender column.
Because the structure above the water level is not affected by water wave action, it may remain, being only affected by winds and rain.
Also the striking by waves causes tunnels to form if the surface remains at one level.
The wave will force itself into any holes that develop causing an impact at the back of the opening removing loose material at the end of the tunnel.
Tunnels require fairly large waves and indicate a large body of water.
The water must recede quickly enough to prevent the structure from being leveled at the water line.
Greater erosion at the bottom of a structure indicates that the water level receded slower at the bottom then at the top as the water was able to remove more material.
In erosion from wind and rain there is no intensification of erosion at a horizontal line
Intensive erosion at the base of a structure can also be caused by the material type.
If erosion layers are caused by material type, then where rock layers that are not level the erosion line would be sloped.
If the rock layers and the erosion line differ it is obviously a water line erosion.
Erosion caused by material differences does not cause extremely smooth erosion lines while water erosion lines are very smooth as they can cut into very hard rock.
The harder the rock the smoother and more defined a water cut is which can develop a polished appearance.
Wind and rain can of course obscure the smoothness of a water line and inspection inside caves is more reliable.
In water erosion all objects at a specific level would erode in a similar manner regardless of what they were made of and so another peak would have the same indications of water level progress distance.
In other words if one peak indicates a rapid 5' drop other structures in the area will also indicate the same condition as the water drop is not dependent on the material of the structure.
Different material types may cause the volume of material removed to be different.
The picture you have shown has a water line which can be seen pausing at several heights.
Tunneling is apparent but no grain in the stone is visible from this distance.
The water undercut is clearly visible on several of the columns.
Judging by the picture upper right the water level must have been fairly high.
Hmm... Looks like the top water line shown at the right would cover just about everything.
Drilling samples, or cutting the rock to expose its interior may give additional evidence that the rock properties do not change with the erosion depth but a visual inspection is adequate to indicate the conditions of formation.
Duane
Your time warp theory causes more problems then it solves in my opnion however my technical knowledge on time warps is very limited (as is the rest of the human race at this technological stage) but my basic knowledge of the principals involved would require enormous energy which is hard to imagine occurring without removing the Earth from orbit let alone atomization of the solar system.John16:2 said:Sounds like the Grand Canyon, it wasn't no stream did that! A great source of geologic evidence of the flood is Immanuel Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", citing sea fossils in Tibet and such. Check my thread ""New Earth" doctrine/1000 years/Pyramids/Myths.
duordi said:A catastrophic meteor strike fits well with the event of the flood so this sediment layer could be taken as a division of before and after flood sediments.
If the sediment layer which contained the radioactive material was not removed by erosion in the area in question a determination of pre or post flood date of a fossil or item could be determined.
You can not use the assumption of a slow steady lengthy accumulation of sediments when dealing with a catastrophic Earth model.notto said:Then we can assume that the flood happened millions of years ago and that the processes that led to the sedimentation and rock before the flood are what gave us the sediment and rock after the flood?
I don't see how there is any evidence at all that can be pointed to a flood or how this evidence fits well with the event of a flood.
Basically, the formations before the flood look just like the ones after the flood. What layers were caused by the flood and how do you know?
I just want to linger on this statement a little. Do you really, truly believe that the assumptions made 50 or 60 years ago have not changed or been put to the test in the intervening years? Don't you think that this statement is a bit hard to believe?duordi said:The assumptions used for the present dating systems were an honest attempt to determine Earths history with the information available 50 or 60 years ago.
The Earth was still considered flat when Columbus sailed to America even though at the time if someone considered the evidence available it was obvious the Earth was round.
The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."
But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?
Science will eventually correct itself.
duordi said:In the same way when blood is found in a dinosaur bone which would indicate that the bone is only a few thousand years old at best, ( and not millions of years ) the scientific community is more likely to accept that a miracle has happened then that the traditional time scale beliefs may be incorrect.
duordi said:You can not use the assumption of a slow steady lengthy accumulation of sediments when dealing with a catastrophic Earth model.
The combination of radioactivity, lava flow and high impact energy causing carbon 14 generation just about violates all of the assumptions required for the common dating systems used.
That is why when I refer to all the falsifications of the global flood I always try to remember to specify the myth of a Global or Worldwide flood. Massive, maybe, massive floods occasionally occur, worldwide no. However, YECs have no other way to explain the world's sedimentary record in a young earth, so the Global flood is central to their cult. It doesn't in any way explain the world's geology but they must think a long falsifed explanation is better than none at all.Theophilus01 said:the flood was local. it really did happen. we know this because several civilizations document a massive flood. the world that the Bible said was flooded was the world of the authors. the authors thought the world was very small - mainly a small chunk of the Middle East.
John16:2 said:Sounds like the Grand Canyon, it wasn't no stream did that! A great source of geologic evidence of the flood is Immanuel Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", citing sea fossils in Tibet and such. Check my thread ""New Earth" doctrine/1000 years/Pyramids/Myths.
No. they are put to the test every day....Tomk80 said:I just want to linger on this statement a little. Do you really, truly believe that the assumptions made 50 or 60 years ago have not changed or been put to the test in the intervening years? Don't you think that this statement is a bit hard to believe?
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?