The list of extinctions compared to the list of 'evolved' organisms

[Keachian]

OH yes mountain ranges pushed up thousands of feet -yes I forgot about that trick.
Somehow I will stick with the big wet -it makes a lot more sense

No it doesn't, the problem is with the pattern of the drainage, it just doesn't make sense that a drainage river will meander carve. it is far more likely that the grand canyon was already there when the flood happened. And there is nothing wrong with this assessment.

 

[florida2]

*OH yes mountain ranges pushed up thousands of feet -yes I forgot about that trick.
Somehow I will stick with the big wet -it makes a lot more sense

Isn't it a measurable process? The Himlayas are growing and Europe and North America drift apart a few centimetres a year.

*Where did all the water go? Well basically the voids from which it originally come got filled with dirt and trees and bodies (our fossil fuel supply) so it had no other place to go except where the dirt was as well as forming the oceans we have today.

Sorry, what? Could you explain what these 'voids' are. Are we talking about holes in the ground? I really don't get it.

BTW doesn't our fossill fuel supply give the best scientific evidence of a global flood or are our "esteemed" scientists just too blind to see that?

Perhaps you could offer some evidence of that?

 

[TasManOfGod]

No it doesn't, the problem is with the pattern of the drainage, it just doesn't make sense that a drainage river will meander carve. it is far more likely that the grand canyon was already there when the flood happened. And there is nothing wrong with this assessment.

So you are an old earth Flood believer - a rare breed indeed

 

[Keachian]

So you are an old earth Flood believer - a rare breed indeed

Well no, force of habit, also I wasn't arguing about whether the flood happened, I personally think that it's a theologically regardless idea, since you are making scientific statements about the formation of the Grand Canyon by flood I'm pointing out to you that it doesn't conform to that idea. YEC with embedded age imo makes a far better explanation than most pseudoscience explanations.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Isn't it a measurable process? The Himlayas are growing and Europe and North America drift apart a few centimetres a year.

Wow

Sorry, what? Could you explain what these 'voids' are. Are we talking about holes in the ground? I really don't get it.

these are the voids referred to in Genesis where some of the water of the Flood come from. It would be assumed that these would be like cavens below the earths crust that "erupted " due to pressure build up. The mass of the debris on top of this thin crust eventually would collapse into the cavity bringing the debris with it and displacing the water.

Perhaps you could offer some evidence of that?

Perhaps if you would carbon date the oil and coal found in these conditions you will find them to be only a few thousand years old- a fact that scientist dont like to discuss.

 

[Assyrian]

*OH yes mountain ranges pushed up thousands of feet -yes I forgot about that trick.

You do realise we can measure the rate the Himalayas are still rising? The highest rate of uplift is nearly 10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat. You do the maths.

Somehow I will stick with the big wet -it makes a lot more sense

You think the Rupal face of Nanga Parbat, which rises 4.6km from its base, makes sense carved out of mud?

*The "horse shoe" could easily occurr through water going down two channels -yes that's right with water flowing in the reverse direction in one of them

So there much have been a third channel carrying twice the amount of water to feed the two channels that now form the horseshoe. Here is Google maps satellite view of the bend. See if you can identify the channel carved by by this missing torrent.

BTW doesn't our fossill fuel supply give the best scientific evidence of a global flood or are our "esteemed" scientists just too blind to see that?

What do you think it is about fossil fuels that is evidence of a global flood?

 

[Gozreht]

Nope, the Colorado River is a meandering river, far different from the rather straight drainage rivers seen in all recent floods

Water flows in the least resistant path. If Colorado was flat then okay. Have you seen Colorado?

The Grand Canyon was just created by the Colorado River.

Fossils found on mountains are explained by tectonic plate theory.

Of course, the obvious questions is that if there was a single flood covering the whole planet, where did all the water go?

You just said tectonic plate theory put fossils on top of mountains yet you can't understand where the water went? It is still here. In the atmosphere, in the new fresh water rivers, deep lakes and trenches in the oceans. The tectonic plates had risen in places dramatically fast.

More problematic for creationism is that some of these rock strata are shales formed from very fine particles which can only be deposited in still calm waters. Not a gouging flood.

The flood wasn't "violent" when it was receding. Once the waters were done gouging the earth in the downpour I am sure it calmed down and THEN deposited it all.

 

[Assyrian]

The flood wasn't "violent" when it was receding. Once the waters were done gouging the earth in the downpour I am sure it calmed down and THEN deposited it all.

The violent receeding floodwaters is a creationist idea to explain how features like the Himalayas or Grand Canyon were carved out. Talk to TasMan about that one. If the waters calmed down after the downpour, wouldn't larger grained sediment settle out first, then shales? We should see a gradation from very course at the bottom to very fine grained sedimentary rock at the top, this should be clearly visible throughout the world, in the layers the flood laid down.

 

[TasManOfGod]

You do realise we can measure the rate the Himalayas are still rising? The highest rate of uplift is nearly 10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat. You do the maths.

OK lets see now 10mm per year for say 3 billion years
3 000 000 000 *.00001
that would make it 30 000 Km (30 thousand kilometers ) high wouldn't it Wow! that would be a danger to space craft. I hope NASA knows about this.

You think the Rupal face of Nanga Parbat, which rises 4.6km from its base, makes sense carved out of mud?

Nah makes no sense at all

So there much have been a third channel carrying twice the amount of water to feed the two channels that now form the horseshoe. Here is Google maps satellite view of the bend. See if you can identify the channel carved by by this missing torrent.

Not really. The water input throughout receeding can happen anywhere along the length of the course of the flow.

What do you think it is about fossil fuels that is evidence of a global flood?

Everything

 

[Incariol]

OK lets see now 10mm per year for say 3 billion years
3 000 000 000 /.01
that would make it 30 000 000 (30 million kilometers ) high wouldn't it Wow! that would be a danger to space craft. I hope NASA knows about this.
Nah makes no sense at all

And here's a hint as to why it isn't 30 million km high.

Earth - Continental Movements - YouTube

 

[TasManOfGod]

And here's a hint as to why it isn't 30 million km high.

Earth - Continental Movements - YouTube

Oops I twigged juust before your post

 

[TasManOfGod]

The flood wasn't "violent" when it was receding. Once the waters were done gouging the earth in the downpour I am sure it calmed down and THEN deposited it all.

What is the more violent -water entering a bathtub or water leaving it?

 

[Gozreht]

I would say it is more turbulent going in but just as "moving" going down.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I would say it is more turbulent going in but just as "moving" going down.

A better example maybe the filling of a dam over time against the sudden release of water when the spill gates open. Bear in mind that we are talking what happens when the flood waters rise over a vast area while the receeding waters might only re-arrange the geology of a fraction of that and disperse the water of the whole area in far less time. If we all can get our head around this (and even I have trouble at times) we are actually talking of a body of water up to 5 kms deep which suddenly tries to enter into a huge underground cavity. Of course the water itself does not enter but is displaced by washed out debris including rocks, sand, plants, and animals (incl. humans ) This scenario repeats itself all around the world resulting in a moderate increase in sea level (in respect to the pre-flood levels)

 

[Gozreht]

Wouldn't disagree with your facts. But add that scripture says the fountains of the deep burst open. So the point is there was a lot of ways the earth could have shifted and changed and allowed water to be very destructive both ways. One for breaking of tectonic plates and one for erosion.

 

[Assyrian]

Wouldn't disagree with your facts. But add that scripture says the fountains of the deep burst open. So the point is there was a lot of ways the earth could have shifted and changed and allowed water to be very destructive both ways. One for breaking of tectonic plates and one for erosion.

Do fountains of the deep refer to tectonic plates? The language seem to refer to springs and artesian wells gushing forth, which you would get if it had started raining in the hills. Deut 8:7 For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valleys.

 

[Gozreht]

Could be but look at the difference in the wording from the actual flood story.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

The fountains and depths just mean lakes, low lying areas and stuff. The springs of the great deep bursting forth means something under the oceans broke through and water gushed from them at the same time rains fell from the sky. I typed fountains without checking the verse, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Assyrian]

Could be but look at the difference in the wording from the actual flood story.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

The fountains and depths just mean lakes, low lying areas and stuff. The springs of the great deep bursting forth means something under the oceans broke through and water gushed from them at the same time rains fell from the sky. I typed fountains without checking the verse, sorry for the confusion.

The deep or depths is used both for the depths of the sea and for deep wells found in land. There are a number of different words used for fountains, but the meaning is springs of water, again the sort of thing you find inland and water your flocks. When we see the two words being used together, wouldn't the context tell us it is inland deeps are being talked about?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Do fountains of the deep refer to tectonic plates? The language seem to refer to springs and artesian wells gushing forth, which you would get if it had started raining in the hills. Deut 8:7 For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valleys.

Call them what you like - but it does answer the question of where all the water come from -and there was a lot of it to cover Everest.
Not only that but it also gives us somewhere for all the water to go (although here we are talking water/land displacement).
Perhaps only recent devastating tsunamis enabled this phenomenon to be understood albeit on a much smaller scale.

 

[Assyrian]

Call them what you like - but it does answer the question of where all the water come from -and there was a lot of it to cover Everest.
Not only that but it also gives us somewhere for all the water to go (although here we are talking water/land displacement).
Perhaps only recent devastating tsunamis enabled this phenomenon to be understood albeit on a much smaller scale.

I prefer to look at what the text says and try to understand that, rather than base my interpretation on what I need it to say to deal with other problems wit interpretations. In othe words, just because you need an explanation for the where the water came from, it doesn't mean this passage has to tell you.

Of course I don't have a problem with all that water since I don't think the passage is describing a global flood or that the water had to cover Everest.