troodon said:Because He has given us the opportunity to live life.
How did he give you the opportunity to live life if he didn't make you or the world you live in?
Jenny
Upvote
0
troodon said:Because He has given us the opportunity to live life.
I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this picduordi 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
A4C said:I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this pic
Now if you also consider that the sedement that was layed down in the layers was not hardened when eroded by a massive amount of receeding flood water over a short time together with some subsequent erosion by wind and rain over the past 4500 years you will find it difficult as I do to accept any other explanation for the formations
Put some mud inside some more mud and leave it in the sun for 4500 years and I am pretty sure it will turn to rock (subject to a scientific investigation of course)notto said:More magic mud!! How did it turn to rock without being subjected to heat or pressure? Why don't we see mud turning to rock today?
A4C said:Put some mud inside some more mud and leave it in the sun for 4500 years and I am pretty sure it will turn to rock (subject to a scientific investigation of course)
Ledifni said:I don't understand how you think all this proves the Flood. You're arguing that the Grand Canyon must have been caused by water erosion -- but we know that. No reputable scientist argues that something other than water erosion was the primary force that shaped the Grand Canyon. But the water that did this was the Colorado River, not a global flood.
Vapourised ? You mean that the mud within the mud turns to a vapour ? Interesting. Please explain how this happensMartinM said:Think you'll find it'll be vapourised in an instant, actually.
Edit: Never mind. Took you too literally there.
There is only one way that a flood could possibly have carved the Grand Canyon - and that is that the same flood laid down the sediment that it was cut out of as the flood water receeded. And there is only one type of flood that could have done that - A MASSIVE one that would cover the whole world. Might I suggest the Flood of Noah as recorded in the Bible meets these requirements.GodsSamus said:Aren't you ASSUMING that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon? Evolutionists now believe neo-catastrophism, which says a local flood carved the big hole in the ground.
Isn't that we are doing at Mt St Helens?notto said:More magic mud!! How did it turn to rock without being subjected to heat or pressure? Why don't we see mud turning to rock today?
A4C said:I concur with much of your comment in relation to the formation you see in this pic
Now if you also consider that the sedement that was layed down in the layers was not hardened when eroded by a massive amount of receeding flood water over a short time together with some subsequent erosion by wind and rain over the past 4500 years you will find it difficult as I do to accept any other explanation for the formations
A4C said:Isn't that we are doing at Mt St Helens?
duordi said:Scientific proof of flood.
duordi said: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.
Lord Emsworth said:Excuse me, I may not have been paying attention, but where did you say this massive amount of water receeded to in the short time?
A4C said:Fossil fuel deposits are of course further flood evidence
Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassmentnotto said:(waits for adhoc reasoning and avoidance)
A4C said:Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment
notto said:Right on que.
When approached with questions that actually get into the detail of the science and geology related to creationist adhoc reasoning, the details are avoided and the discussion is left.
This is standard for creationists. They don't want to discuss the specifics of things like rock type, chemical makeup of rocks, things such as clear characteristics that allow us to distinquish sink holes from meteor craters (which has been gone over in quite a bit of detail here when this claim came up the FIRST TIME).
Creationists like to stick to simple adhoc explanations that don't really pan out as a scientificly feasible model and one that is not self contradictory. All rock is the same except when they need it to be different (why did the runoff from mount saint helens supposedly turn to rock when the runoff from other floods doesn't?), the flood was devastating yet gentle (moved all of the sediment yet preserved delicate features and burrows), All sediment was laid down by the flood except for some of it (those coal deposits with footprints and tree roots).
This shows that they are really not interested in good honest discussion about science such as geology, physics, biology, etc. What they don't know, they don't have to rationalize away. Knowledge and actual discussion of the details of mechanisms and rational science is the enemy of what they cling to.
Goodbye A4C.
I'll see you next time you bring up
- Rapid rock formation at mount saint helens (which never been document to have actually taken place)
- No sediment on the east coast (which is simply false)
- Sinkholes mistake for craters (which can only be claimed if you are still avoiding the evidence you were shown last time you brought it up that shows that we can clearly tell the difference)
Perhaps the next time you bring these things up you would actually like to discuss the details of them instead of holding to false and simplistic notions of the concepts involved.
A4C said:Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment