Which is pretty much like a world wide flood would predict. Sea life first land life last.
Would you like to try again?
Upvote
0
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.
Which is pretty much like a world wide flood would predict. Sea life first land life last.Different strata with different fossils showing that the distribution of biological life has changed substantially over time.
Trilobites down there, dinosaurs there, mammals up there.
Sandstone formations. Some of the sandstone strata exposed at the grand canyon continue across the USA.I'm not aware of any good scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. Can you share?
Which is pretty much like a world wide flood would predict. Sea life first land life last.
Would you like to try again?
Limestone is to pure. It must have formed fast during some sort of bloom. If it took as long as the OE's claim it would have been loaded with junk.Hilarious. The earliest geologists in Europe set out to find evidence for the Flood. The more they searched the more clear it became to them that the Flood didn't happen (or at least wasn't global). The situation has only gotten worse since then.
One of the biggest problems for Flood apologists, and one nearly all of them ignore is heat. The claim that the geologic record is due to the Flood, but that frankly, is impossible. Limestone only forms in calm, relatively shallow and warm seas so it couldn't form during the Flood anyway.
Limestone, like nearly all rock, isn't merely hardened mud. It undergoes a chemical process to harden and that process gives off heat. In fact it gives off so much heat that if the earth's limestone formed in 10,000 years the heat would have vaporized the surface of the earth. Since limestone was being used for construction shortly after the claimed time of the Flood, it would have had to solidify in an even shorter time making the heat problem all the worse.
And that's just one problem. We can aver, unequivocally, that the Flood (at least on a global scale) never happened.
This is a schematic of the coagulation cascade. And actually somewhat simplified. At least 13 different factors interacting with multiple enzymes. So many moving parts and places for things to go wrong. (Which is clearly a reason why blood clotting disorders are common.) Not what I'd call intelligent design.
View attachment 258114
The point here is that complexity does not indicate intelligent design. Just the opposite is true. Simplicity does. Example: You find a rock in your yard. It's very irregular in shape. Some surfaces are smooth and some are rough. Its mass is unbalanced--one end is larger and heavier than the other. Then you find another rock. This one is perfectly spherical. It's surface is uniform. Its mass is balanced and it rolls without wobbling. Rock 1 has a much more complex structure than Rock 2. But which one is likely to have resulted from random natural processes and which is likely to have been purposefully made?
Sandstone formations. Some of the sandstone strata exposed at the grand canyon continue across the USA.
Which is pretty much like a world wide flood would predict. Sea life first land life last.
Would you like to try again?
There is much to say about it..and this forum is inadequate to explain all of it. But, scientist have looked at the enormous size of the sandstones as well as the deposition of the grains of sand and see angular direction with associated speed and determine they didn't settle over long times. That's just one point of many. As you being an atheist I understand it will be impossible for you to put down your text book and actually look for the truth.This is way too vague. Can you explain specifically how these formations show that there was a worldwide flood?
Which sandstone?There is much to say about it..and this forum is inadequate to explain all of it. But, scientist have looked at the enormous size of the sandstones as well as the deposition of the grains of sand and see angular direction with associated speed and determine they didn't settle over long times. That's just one point of many. As you being an atheist I understand it will be impossible for you to put down your text book and actually look for the truth.
That's a reasonable position to take, but given that you acknowledge that you have a lot to learn, should you be making assertions that are both central to your argument and incorrect? You said this: "Some of the sandstone strata exposed at the grand canyon continue across the USA." (Post #42)I'm not really going to go over every aspect of sandstones as i still have a lot to learn.
That's a reasonable position to take, but given that you acknowledge that you have a lot to learn, should you be making assertions that are both central to your argument and incorrect? You said this: "Some of the sandstone strata exposed at the grand canyon continue across the USA." (Post #42)
The Tapeats sandstone, which was the subject of your link, does not "continue across the USA". None of the sandstone present at the Grand Canyon "continues across the USA". If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.
The link you gave, to an article in Creation Research Society Quarterly, is interesting, but it doesn't appear to address one stumbling block if you wish to identify the "rapid deposition" with The Flood. There is no mention of how the many hundreds of feet of non-flood sediments wound up lying over the Tapeats sandstone.
In Summary: the sandstone does not, as you claim, span the USA. Identifying the sandstone as a product of The Flood, ignores the many non-flood sediments lying above it.
How about something from a peer reviewed journal, rather than a Paint Shop graphic my grandson could create. Or do wish to avoid serious discussion?
I did support it. Prove me wrong.You made an assertion. It is your responsibility to support that assertion, or withdraw it. Alternatively you can be thought of as irresponsible. Your choice.
Even if that made sense (Why is sea life dying at all? From some rain on the surface?) it's still grossly inaccurate. I didn't say 'sea life' and 'land life'.
Whales are mammals. They live only in the sea. They are only found way up at the top where all mammals are found.
No, my first point still stands. Would you like to try at all?
The material you offered was not support. An appropriate peer reviewed article from a reputable journal is necessary to support your assertion. Your reluctance/inability to provide this is duly noted. The conclusion is that you are parroting questionable data from creationist sources that - by your own admission - you do not properly understand. Your aims would better served if you educated yourself on such topics properly before posting.I did support it. Prove me wrong.
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?