Scientific proof of flood.

[Arikay]

It's amazing the guesses you can make when you aren't basing anything on evidence.

I think the windy grand canyon was God trying to sign the earth. Maybe in an alien language it says, "God was here."

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.

 

[Arikay]

Since you are repeating the Mt. St. Helens claim, I thought I would repeat Notto's list of questions related to it:

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.

 

[Arikay]

I also thought I would quote Gluadys' post, as it deserves an answer as well,

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.

 

[paulrob]

And only the Earth remodel and life is Young (6000) years.

Duane

So where does this 6000 years come from. As a YEC, I still put the date at least double that based on the Hebrew geneology. A world 15,000 years old, as I suspect it is close to from the Biblical account, would be much easier to explain that one 6000 years old. A single lineage of Bristlecone Pine in the Sierra Nevada's has been traced back just about 6000 years, and that by your date would be preflood.

The Bible doesn't say for sure, and I hate to be dogmatic (but I am convinced) about anything where the Bible is silent, but if we add up the dates we know for sure and the geneology from Exodus, we have about 13,000 - 14,000 years from adam to present.

Sometimes we take these notions to heart and cause ourselves a lot of unnecessary pain.

 

[paulrob]

while we are on canyons. No canyons are not only made by slow erosion, this is a false statement. there are plenty of canyons made by a flood.

The Tuttle Canyon, Spirit Lake WA was formed in about two weeks. It looks very much like the Grand Canyon, only a lot smaller. But the same forces that created it in a couple weeks could well have made the Grand Canyon in a number of milleniums.

And it stands to reason if it can make one this way a world flood could make one a lot bigger. As for the canyons being formed say the grand canyon, I read it took 50 some million years to form it. some of the sandstone was supoosed to be from a ocean beach of some sort washing ashore.

Actually, the 50 M years is an evolutionists pixie dust.

But there is evidence of parts of it being a beach, and that fits well into the Biblical flood story. The water subsiding from the flood would have lapped at the eastern edge of the ridge that trapped the water that became Lake Grand - covering the Nevada basin, Arizona, etc. As the water east of the rise lowered, the water pressure on the west side - arizona, etc increased til the water breached its banks and the erosion began

All the rock is of different material in the strata layers.

This would be in keeping with the flood model of sedimentation and rocks of all types being washed in by wave action. Add to that the vulcanism of the flood poperiod, and what you get is pretty much what you see.

Well how did the river stay in exsistence while the ocean was by it or over it, as in how the sand stone got there. why is there so many different types of rocks in layers, how did it or why did it change. the canyon is not one side of rock and another it is meandering and up and down narrow and wide. Where is all the dirt that was washed away at. it is not in the gulf of mexico where it should be. Also how did it stay in the same channel or happen while the continents where moveing at the same time, plate tectonic. is there any evidence of plate tectonics working on it.

You've mase an interesting point about the river staying stable for millions of years while the continents drifted around, rose and sank, etc for 50 M years. That takes a lot of faith

Also why are there other much faster rivers that have not done the same thing. Where did the river come from in the beginning. Did the rockies form first then the canyon, how do the dates of both match up. Is this to many questions.

Some interesting points

Note that every major river - ie Hudson, Nile, Amazon etc all have created canyons that in some cases dwarf the Grand Canyon. Moving water + Sediment = incredible eroding power.

Not sure where I got this figure, but it sticks in my mind that Niagara falls is receeding 40 feet a year? if thats right, then the grand canyon flowing mud and sand would really erode quickly.

 

[Arikay]

So, are you actually going to address the two posts I quoted?
Or should we not expect much in the way of supporting your statements.

 

[paulrob]

Then where is the basalt?

Don't get technical - and help me out by including my quote please. My life is disjointed enough without having to remember exactly what I said in a post.

I was using that as an example of hard rock pushing up through the sandstone. I'd have to drag out a textbook to find out exactly what other rocks are present in the canyon region.

I didn't say I had all the details right. that takes more time than I have while I'm waiting for stuff to happen.

But fear not, I will mark this as one to come back to . . .

 

[MarkT]

I disgaree the supernatural is like a a miracle, and a miracle by definition is something that goes against the laws of the universe. And how can the Big Bang and abiogenesis be supernatural events? Someone could only say that if they dont understand it.

Well, before there was a universe, something had to happen to trigger the Big Bang; something greater than nature.

Nature didn't create itself by law.

There's no law of the universe that says the universe has to exist.

There's no law that says there must be a law.

And no natural law created any living thing.

 

[paulrob]

Since you are repeating the Mt. St. Helens claim, I thought I would repeat Notto's list of questions related to it:

I thought I'd add the original question to make an answer more in context.

1) how many different types of sediment are represented there?

No idea - mostly volcanic ash I presume

2) how many layes of developed soil in those layers at Mt. St. Helens?

None - it only happened 20 years ago

3) Any buried animal tracks or eroded river beds in between those layers?
Only crispy critters

4) Where did mount saint helens lay down limestone or sandstone?
Already answered

5) Where did mount saint helens erode through what is clearly existing rock?
Nowhere.

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

I said it was a model. If i'd made the model out of plasticine, it would not have any of those features either. But it would still be a model.

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.

Why should I - your're asking me to compare apples and oranges. We're talking fresh volcanic ash with sandstone deposits. You should know that. But then Me thinks you doth protest to much.

Now what has all this to do with the statements that I made, or are you just building a strawman argument? When did I ever make a statement that there was erosion through limestone, fossil remains (actually I did say that somewhere - at least animal remains - don't know if they fossilized or just baked), have top soil, etc. Nowhere. I plainly state that the canyon was formed in two weeks.

Now, having answered your questions, why ask them at all? We know that the Grand Canyon was laid down over a long period of time on top of ground that already had a animal habitat on it. We know that some of those animals at least were dinasours, etc. as there are fossilized footprints. We know that there was an imense deposit of sand and lime that became sandstone.

But none of that requires the long ages of time you seem to be contending for. 5000 years? I can give you that if you need it, but 50,000,000 years? that's pixie dust . . .

Now let me ask you, since you seem to want to ask impossible questions, when the national parks office at the Grand canyon talks about the fossil footprints in the Coconino layer,

1) why are all the footprints headed north - uphill?

2) How did all these animals get back down without leaving footprints?

3) Why with all the footprints in the Grand Canyon area are there no bone fossils? while the Coconino layer contains the footprints of at least 20 types of amphibians and reptiles, there's not a bone or tooth anywhere. Reason?

4) why are there sponge fossils in the Kaibab layer (top layer) but no fish or animal fossils? I thought the simplest, least complex life forms were at the bottom? Or do I misquote evolutionary dogma

Just thought I'd give you a little something to think about while I answer some of the other questions

 

[paulrob]

I also thought I would quote Gluadys' post, as it deserves an answer as well,

Patience certainly isn't very well developed in these young people, is it?

I'm sure Gluady is old enough to speak for herself. She and I have probably exchanged 500 or so posts over the years. I have a job, and get my computer time in spurts. And today I lost a hard drive, so I'm doing these posts while fixing the computer beside me. Oh yes, did I say I worked? And this isn't the only place I haunt . . .

 

[Arikay]

It's not about patients but about questions oddly getting overlooked, ignored and pushed further beyond the first page, good question, questions that should be answered, questions that get ignored constantly by creationists.

I have an idea, if you put the time you have spent making posts such as the last into making posts with supporting evidence, it may produce a much better conversation.

 

[armed2010]

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

A Hovind minion is not a biologist.

 

[paulrob]

It's not about patients but about questions oddly getting overlooked, ignored and pushed further beyond the first page, good question, questions that should be answered, questions that get ignored constantly by creationists.

I have an idea, if you put the time you have spent making posts such as the last into making posts with supporting evidence, it may produce a much better conversation.

Since this wasn't addressed to anyone, I'm assuming that you mean me

I drive a tour bus, and do these posts from mall kiosks, hotel offices, anywhere a good soul will let me hang out for an hour.

These cannot possibly be conversations, as I'm simply not available. If I wanted a conversation, I'd join a chat room.

The demands placed by some of these fanatical evolutionists for evidence, citations, etc require thought and time - and without the posts being threaded, this seems awkward to me.

I don't run away from an issue. I believe that after 50 years debating creationism in one aspect or anoither, that Creationism is the only logical explanation for our biosphere.

But to expect that one can simply drop everything and give you my undivided attention isn't going to happen. When I'm home, I have two unfinished houses. When I'm on the road, I'm at the whim of my clients.

So today I'm home. lost a hard drive yesterday. Answered a bunch while on the other computer.

But noticed you haven't answered MY questions. C'mon, man get with it. What are you waiting for? or are you avoiding the answers?

 

[paulrob]

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.

You never quit with the assumptions do you?

the bible is not a scientific book, and doesn't claim to be. But it DOES claim to be the revelation of God to man, and every word was carefully selected to convey to man the truth. Therefore in every point at which it touches science it is accurate. The founder of our faith, Jesus Christ, stated this to be the case, and since he was God, he cannot lie.

Usher was wrong, just like Darwin. Science hasn't rejected Darwin because of his ignorance - and the Bible shouldn't be rejected because of Usher's error. If you do the math on the Biblical age of the earth, it comes out to 11,000 BC. I could be more exact, but what's the point?

There is no reason at all why everything couldn't have been created in 6 days - and your age of the universe is totally out of date, even for an evolutionist.

The fossil record shows that every creature on this planet came into existance fully formed and fully functional. There were no walking whales, apemen, and protoavis. These are fictional creations, not scientific fact.

The necessity of these fictional beings is what has fed the continuous string of frauds and lies of the evolutionists in the last 150 years to keep the story going until we find something real that fits our theory.

The evidence of a world wide flood is everywhere. But if that were true, then creation is likely also true. And we cannot have that, now can we. So we concoct a series of fairy tales to fill the gaps. we know they're right because we want them to be.

When science can answer the mysteries that are impossible - the origin of the cosmic egg, how something came from nothing, how life came to be against the impossible odds set out by the Wistar conferences, etc - then you can nickel and dime the creation story. Til then, find the answers to the problems in your own religion.

Until that happens, evolution is a guess based on assumptions based on a philosophy-driven view of the facts.

There is no evidence for long ages of the earth, no evidnece tha any kind of animal can becaome any other kind, and no evidnce to contradict the Biblical account of origins.

I get a bit tired of these oft-quoted opinions, as if frequent repetition will somehow make them fact.

 

[HRE]

The demands placed by some of these fanatical evolutionists for evidence, citations, etc require thought and time - and without the posts being threaded, this seems awkward to me.

Silly fellows...

 

[Arikay]

And if you pay even the slightest bit of attention you would notice I was only repeating Notto's questions, thus your questions should be addressed to him, and thus we will have to wait till he gets here to answer them.

I do notice you like to make lots of statements but don't like to take the time to back any of them up. This doesn't help your credibility.

But noticed you haven't answered MY questions. C'mon, man get with it. What are you waiting for? or are you avoiding the answers?

 

[paulrob]

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.

I have included the origional of my statement for clarity:

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.

I'm not sure I should be doing your homework, since you say you have several Bibles at home. So I suggest that you get out your Hebrew Interlinear and research the meaning of the word translated flood, the fountains of the deep, etc. The word "flood" does not just imply being covered by water.

Then look at Psalms 104 and tell me what you think that means in this context. Then I'll fill in the gaps for you.

Its a good word study, and you'll benefit from it immensly.

By the way, I had a much longer answer ready to post last night and the power went off. So now I'm posting rougher drafts and then editing - saves a lot of work being lost.

Trust me, my statements are a lot easier to believe, and a lot more in keeping with observable science today than the evolutionary theory that you've been espousing.

I could post the 4 pages of background I prepared for this post, but . . . nah!!!

 

[Arikay]

Bah, and people wonder why the nice YECs get treated harshly, because people get used to dealing with arrogant people too much on this forum.

 

[paulrob]

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

Darwin on Trial is great - Phillip Johnson has been allowed to speak at numerous universities to debate the logic of evolution (which is totally lacking) and that'a a good thing.

Of all the creationists I've read, he was the only one I know of who took the time to speak personally to Patterson ( Museum of man, London) about his famous statement that after a lifetime of studying evolution, he suddenly realized that he didn't know any one thing for sure about evolution that was true.

I'm a real Johnson fan.

And don't lose a lot of sleep about all these evolutionists who have such a low esteem of God that he couldn't and/or didn't do what he said He did. The majority is seldom right about anything. Keep your perspective; theough things are repeated over and over doesn't make them so. The science followers of the day were sure the earth was flat - because you could see it was so. So today, they tell us the earth is old because we can see it to be so. Both observations are illusions - conjecture on knowing only a little of the fact.

If they had a living Saviour in their heart, they would know that God means every word He gave us in His Word. The rejection of the gospel, and particularly the flood and the second coming of Christ were predicted long ago by Peter, so in a way, the evolutionist assault on the Bible simply helps to prove its validity

 

[paulrob]

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

Look for some books by Gary Parker. He was a university professor in Biology, and wrote textbooks used in the secular universities.

After a lifetime of study, he was so convinced of the truth of creation, that he stopped teaching evolution.

A good source of short articles on Creation if at www.apologeticspress.org. Both authors have PhD's in Biology, and are very adept at writing understandable reports. They tey to stay on top of the latest science. Which is more than I can say for some of the evolutionists

In particular, look for some of the articles thay have written about National Geographic's deliberate hoaxes supporting evolution, and the attack on creationists in Nature magazine written by John Rennie. A word search on their website will find the articles. they have at least one book online, and maybe more.

They are factual scientific articles, and show how far evolutionists are willing to go to teach their religion, with little to no regard for the truth.

The one I just referenced is an article on how science will now have to redate their concept of the universe, because one of the markers used to estimate its age was off by three billion years. Thats a long time to be off.

Another good reference is Water Brown's book and web site http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/. He's often maligned by evolutionists, and all his theories may not be perfect yet, but his story is at least as accurate as any evolutionist presentation. He was a professor of earth science at MIT and NASA, and you don't get thiose jobs if you don't know your stuff.

He covers subjects there that really tie what is KNOWN about science (as opposed to what is filled in and taught as fact) into the Biblical account, and shows how well it all fits together.

There's lots to learn . . .