Scientific proof of flood.

duordi · Aug 3, 2005

notto said:
If a global flood happened at the same time the meteorite struck that laid down the iridium layer, I would expect to find some evidence that the flood actually happened. It seems to me that you are simply claiming it did without any type of evidence that would indicate that it did.

You must not have read my first page of this thread.

Please do so it may be interesting to you.

Oh and check the picture out.

notto said:
This also leads you to the problem of actually explaining the geology of layers above and below the irridium layer without actually using the flood as a standard creationist expaination. I don't think you can do that because the evidence that we find in these very layers falsifies a young earth and you are also left with no mechanism other than the mechanisms we see happening today forming the geology formations we see. The sedimentation, lithification, erosion and uplift patterns we see in the geology of the earth can only be explained with these current mechanisms if you conclude that they went on for a very long time.

Lets start from the big picture.

1. The evidence of large water flows as in the grand canyon.
In the case of the grand canyon a giant lake is assumed to have released and caused the washout.

Notice how the slow steady process have to be propped up with catastrophic events to explain the condition.

2. The geoligical layers during a flood would have the heaver trilobites
on the bottom of a body of water already would be at the bottom of the geological record.

Birds are lighter and have the ability to move to higher ground quickly also in a flood condition would tend to float better causing them (on average) to be at the top of the geological record which is where they are found.

3. Recently several underwater cities have been found with pyramids at several places around the globe indicating that the original water level on earth was at the continental self level which indicates that not only was there a flood but that the water line has not returned to the original level yet.

4. A slow gradual condition does not explain how the continental shelf was created with river deltas at the contential shelf elevation. This is of course expected if the condition before the flood had a ocean level at the elevation of the continental shelf.

5. The Earths north pole area is know to have fossil remains of tropical plants and animals. The extent of this condition is may clear by the large oil reserves which are know to exist in northern climates such as Alaska.

This suggests a much different climate condition then exists now. Such a vastly different climate which must exist before the first ice age dated at 100,000 years even by dating methods which assume a non catastrophic history. Such a change in the Earth climate at so recient a time disproves the idea that things have remained the same for millions of years.

I am just getting started and the most obvious geological traits on Earth support a catastrophic event.

Oh, and I didn't mention the meteor crater survey which would surely indicate something similar to a "nuclear winter" or ice age should occur.

The only geological record of such an event is the ice ages placing the event in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years even based non-catastrophic dating methods.

So I guess you could say that the current dating methods prove that their base assumption of a non-catastrophic conditions are incorrect, as there is not millions of years for the slow gradual accumulation of the geological record to occur.

It would seem that the only way that a slow gradual geological accumulation over millions of years can be defended is by presenting data "to complicated" for an individual to understand so that it may be "interpreted" for them.

Of course if you have a specific geological condition you wish to discuss, please do.

Your comments seem open and honest.

When one first considers a catastrophic history from a scientific perspective it is somewhat surprising at how well it fits to the geological record.

This idea is by no means without flaws.

Have a nice day.

Duane

duordi · Aug 3, 2005

notto said:
It's also interesting to note that these impacts are fairly distributed above and below the layer. If the all happened at the same time, I would not expect this.

An interesting thought.
I challange you to produce a site which verifies this.

Not during, but lets say at the inception of a global flood.

Duane

duordi · Aug 3, 2005

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
BTW, the idea that a uniform layer of fine meteorite dust somehow settled out all over the earth during a raging global flood is pretty strange. The impacts are not random for two reasons, their evidence is lost in geological unstable areas with active mountain building or in areas of extensive erosion and 2. They are not found in areas that have been explored less such as equatorial Africa and the Amazon. The Chixulub impact crater was only recently discovered after all. There may be many more out there to find.

FB

So if the data doesnt match your theories it must be incomplete or faulty.

But this is easily proved faulty by considering that the creator distribution would match the gelogical stability of an area completely not just in specific areas which may occur by random chance.

Nice try though.

Duane

duordi · Aug 3, 2005

TheBear said:
If this was the result of a global flood, the Grand Canyon should be rich with fossils of animals and plants not indigenous to North America. I haven't found any yet. Have you?

An interesting thought.
What chain of events would bring this about?

Duane

TheBear · Aug 3, 2005

duordi said:
An interesting thought.
What chain of events would bring this about?

Duane

A global flood?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 3, 2005

duordi said:
So if the data doesnt match your theories it must be incomplete or faulty.

But this is easily proved faulty by considering that the creator distribution would match the gelogical stability of an area completely not just in specific areas which may occur by random chance.

Nice try though.

Duane

This is total gibberish as far as I can see, not even a good try. As with so many YECs, what you think is evidence for the global flood actually shows that it didn't occur.

FB

John16:2 · Aug 3, 2005

duordi said:
An interesting thought.
What chain of events would bring this about?

Duane

You were expecting maybe La Brea tar pits everywhere? Massive erosion at Grand Canyon is apparent enough.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 3, 2005

John16:2 said:
You were expecting maybe La Brea tar pits everywhere? Massive erosion at Grand Canyon is apparent enough.

It is also apparent that those steep walls and sharp meanders were not cut by a single catastrophic flood. The Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin. The side canyons, which often enter at right angles are cut to the level of the canyon floor except where they have been blocked by landslides or lava flows. Topology produced by catastrophic flooding, such as seen in the Channeled scablands of Eastern Washington looks totally different.

FB

A4C · Aug 3, 2005

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
It is also apparent that those steep walls and sharp meanders were not cut by a single catastrophic flood. The Grand Canyon is an equilibrium drainage basin. The side canyons, which often enter at right angles are cut to the level of the canyon floor except where they have been blocked by landslides or lava flows. Topology produced by catastrophic flooding, such as seen in the Channeled scablands of Eastern Washington looks totally different.

FB

Actually as I see it the flood scenario is the ONLY one that fits the formation of the features of the Grand Canyon . What else but the laying down of multiple sediment layers collected over vast distances and reaching thicknesses of 1 mile then to be subsequently eroded by receeding flood while still in its "wet' condition to be further left to the elements to harden and erode by wind and water over the next 4500 years.
Nothing else but the flood of Noah could achieve this.
Here is something interesting on the Washington scablands from here:
" Almost fifty years following his original proposal, Bretz was hailed as a hero, and in 1979, at the age of 96, he was given geology's highest honor the Penrose Medal, which rewards one researcher each year for exceptional contributions to geology. The Channeled Scablands have now been dedicated to Harlen Bretz, and it is commonly known that this area was destroyed by a massive flood catastrophe"

notto · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
Actually as I see it the flood scenario is the ONLY one that fits the formation of the features of the Grand Canyon . What else but the laying down of multiple sediment layers collected over vast distances and reaching thicknesses of 1 mile then to be subsequently eroded by receeding flood while still in its "wet' condition to be further left to the elements to harden and erode by wind and water over the next 4500 years.
Nothing else but the flood of Noah could achieve this.

Strange that geologists haven't figured this out.

How did the top layers become rock in the absense of heat and pressure and in the presense of rain?

Why don't we see this happening today with exposed mud?

If that much mud can turn to rock in 4500 years, it would seem that it is a fairly rapid process. Why can't we observe this happening? How come we don't find new rocks being formed out of mud every day?

Wait, I know. Because your scenario avoids what we actually do know about geology and rock formation of chemical rocks.

Magic Mud!!!

notto · Aug 3, 2005

duordi said:
An interesting thought.
I challange you to produce a site which verifies this.

Not during, but lets say at the inception of a global flood.

Duane

The site you gave us verifies this. It shows that the age of the rocks is from before and after the irridium layer. Guess where that means they were found.

Your own reference site conflicts with your conclusions.

A4C · Aug 3, 2005

I hope notto does not expect me to respond to him as he would know I have him on my ignore list

Split Rock · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
I hope notto does not expect me to respond to him as he would know I have him on my ignore list

F.Y.I. Don't worry.... he was responding to duordi

notto · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
I hope notto does not expect me to respond to him as he would know I have him on my ignore list

If only you would take evidence off your ignore list.

Split Rock · Aug 3, 2005

notto said:
If only you would take evidence off your ignore list.

LOL!

Too True!

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
Actually as I see it the flood scenario is the ONLY one that fits the formation of the features of the Grand Canyon . What else but the laying down of multiple sediment layers collected over vast distances and reaching thicknesses of 1 mile then to be subsequently eroded by receeding flood while still in its "wet' condition to be further left to the elements to harden and erode by wind and water over the next 4500 years.

Recently deposited sediments will not support 5,000 foot cliffs. The rocks were hardened by overburden which eroded away before the canyon was carved. The deposition of the multiple layers of the Colorado plateau is well understood and they were clearly not deposited by a global flood. John Woolf has a good comparison of the real Geology of the Grand Canyon with flood pseudo geology HERE. Another good description of the deposition of the rock strata of the Colorado Plateau starts HERE. If you really want to learn about the real geology of the Grand Canyon read Grand Canyon Geology by Bues and Morales. You will see how different the real geology is from the YEC's oversimplified and distorted descriptions.

Nothing else but the flood of Noah could achieve this.

In fact there is much about the Grand Canyon that falsifies YEC and the flood of Noah never came anywhere near the area. Here is quote from Woolf's summary.
"The majesty of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River stands as a mute monument to the vast depths of time: time represented by the rocks, and time represented by the canyon through those rocks. No model of Earth history can be accepted unless it explains the Grand Canyon. The facts given in this article demonstrate clearly that Steve Austin's young-Earth model for the Grand Canyon is a complete failure. Further, it shows that the same questions and objections which kill Austin's model will also kill any other model that only allows a few thousand years for the history of the Plateau and the Canyon. No young-Earth model will ever survive the test of the Grand Canyon, and that means that no young-Earth model of Earth history can ever be accepted at all."

Here is something interesting on the Washington scablands from here:
" Almost fifty years following his original proposal, Bretz was hailed as a hero, and in 1979, at the age of 96, he was given geology's highest honor the Penrose Medal, which rewards one researcher each year for exceptional contributions to geology. The Channeled Scablands have now been dedicated to Harlen Bretz, and it is commonly known that this area was destroyed by a massive flood catastrophe"

The channeled scablands were acutally carved by about 100 separate floods and the water mostly cut through Loess though in some spots basalt was also carved. The hard rocks that comprise the Grand Canyon are nothing like Loess. I have visited the Scablands more than once and they are nothing like the Grand Ganyon.

FB

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 3, 2005

duordi said:
You must not have read my first page of this thread.

Please do so it may be interesting to you.

Oh and check the picture out.

Lets start from the big picture.

1. The evidence of large water flows as in the grand canyon.
In the case of the grand canyon a giant lake is assumed to have released and caused the washout.

You are confusing YEC pseudo-geology with real geology. There were large flows down the Colorado after the breaching of lava dams several times in the last few hundred thousand years but there is no evidence of a giant lake anywhere. That is a figment of Steve Austin's imagination.

Notice how the slow steady process have to be propped up with catastrophic events to explain the condition.

Geologist understand that catastrophic processes occasionally occur. When they do they leave evidence. There is no evidence of a global flood.

2. The geoligical layers during a flood would have the heaver trilobites
on the bottom of a body of water already would be at the bottom of the geological record.

It is a myth that trilobites were especially heavy. Their fossils are heavy because they are made of solid rocks but many trilobites were free swimming organisms and they lived in every marine ecological niche.

Birds are lighter and have the ability to move to higher ground quickly also in a flood condition would tend to float better causing them (on average) to be at the top of the geological record which is where they are found.

Somehow none of the flying repitles made these flight I guess those intellegent, flying mangrove trees and fast running grasses were able to outrace the velocirators to high ground as well

3. Recently several underwater cities have been found with pyramids at several places around the globe indicating that the original water level on earth was at the continental self level which indicates that not only was there a flood but that the water line has not returned to the original level yet.

What? Ocean levels were lower during the ice ages and are rising now. What does this have to do with a worldwide flood?

4. A slow gradual condition does not explain how the continental shelf was created with river deltas at the contential shelf elevation. This is of course expected if the condition before the flood had a ocean level at the elevation of the continental shelf.

where do you get this nonsense?

5. The Earths north pole area is know to have fossil remains of tropical plants and animals. The extent of this condition is may clear by the large oil reserves which are know to exist in northern climates such as Alaska.

The Noth Pole is in the Artic Ocean. Maybe you mean the South Pole. Did you ever hear of continental drift?

This suggests a much different climate condition then exists now. Such a vastly different climate which must exist before the first ice age dated at 100,000 years even by dating methods which assume a non catastrophic history. Such a change in the Earth climate at so recient a time disproves the idea that things have remained the same for millions of years.

Who said they did? There have been many ice ages and many warmer periods in earth's long history.

I am just getting started and the most obvious geological traits on Earth support a catastrophic event.

Actually there is evidence of many catastrophic events in earth's history but no evidence of a global flood.

Oh, and I didn't mention the meteor crater survey which would surely indicate something similar to a "nuclear winter" or ice age should occur.

I have previously pointed out that there are too many meteor strikes and massive volcanic eruptions known to fit in the Young Earth/Global flood scenario. Thanks for bring this falsfication of YEC mythology up again.

The only geological record of such an event is the ice ages placing the event in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years even based non-catastrophic dating methods.

Actually there have been many ice ages during the last billion years of earth's history providing yet another falsification of your young earth mythology.

So I guess you could say that the current dating methods prove that their base assumption of a non-catastrophic conditions are incorrect, as there is not millions of years for the slow gradual accumulation of the geological record to occur.

You could say that modern geologists are actualists rather than strict uniformitarians if you actually knew what you were talking about.

It would seem that the only way that a slow gradual geological accumulation over millions of years can be defended is by presenting data "to complicated" for an individual to understand so that it may be "interpreted" for them.

They are not too complicated if you are willing to study a little actual geology and not simplistic YEC pseudo geology.

FB

A4C · Aug 3, 2005

There is only one way that sediment can be laid down to thicknesses of hundreds of feet and then that same sediment gets eroded by the same water that layed it as it receeds - and that is by a global flood
Think about it

rmwilliamsll · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
There is only one way that sediment can be laid down to thicknesses of hundreds of feet and then that same sediment gets eroded by the same water that layed it as it receeds - and that is by a global flood
Think about it

why is it "the same water"?

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 3, 2005

A4C said:
There is only one way that sediment can be laid down to thicknesses of hundreds of feet and then that same sediment gets eroded by the same water that layed it as it receeds - and that is by a global flood
Think about it

Of course it wasn't the "same water". What erosion are you talking about anyway? The angular unconformity between the precambrian and paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon is one of many features of the Canyon that refute flood deposition.

Not all of the Canyon layers were even deposited by water. There are fossil soils known as paleosols at the top of the Redwall Limestones and the Coconino Sandstones are wind formed deposits. You can read about them HERE.

Ironically, while creationists falsely claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a flood investigation of the sediments of the Colorado Plateau and the structure of the Grand Canyon provide data that are among the many Falsifications of the Worldwide flood.

FB

Scientific proof of flood.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

NON-WOKED

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Legend

Legend

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

Conflation of Blathers

Legend

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Contributor

Secrecy and Christ likeness cannot co-exist

avid reader

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency