What couldn't the flood do? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood?
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.
During the flood, they could.
And your incredibly poor reading comprehension strikes again. The topic was sedimentary rocks in that sentence, not fossils. Try again.
Ooh, an extremely minor point for you.
Sadly you are wrong in everything else.
And an incredible non sequitur. Wrong again. So incredibly wrong.
There is no "flood theory". You cannot find a link for one.
Snicker indeed.
After I warned you about conflating the rate of growth of individual corals with the rate of growth of the reef what did you do
What you just did was the same as conflating the rate of growth of trees in a forest with the rate of growth of the soil on the forest floor.
Care to try again?
You lost.
You did exactly what I warned you not to do. I was trying to keep you from looking like a fool and you ignored the warning.
I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not.
I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.
During the flood, they could.
You understand nothing Subduction and your comprehension of science is pathetic. You even admit that sedimentary processes other than water rarely hold fossils, then refuse to admit the logical conclussion, that almost everu single fossil bed found has been found in sedimentary rock created by water. Yes, a tiny fraction, less that 2% has been found in other rock types in extremely small quantities.
I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.
A fact you can not overcome and even admit. You admit fossils are rarely found in processes that form sedimentary rock other than by water, then come to the incorrect conclussion water was not involved. man, I just love your double-talk and refusal to accept the evidence.
All you can do is make a broad claim of incorrectness, while at the same time admitting fossils are rarely found in rock formed by processes other than water. What is it like to live in that fantasy world of yours?
During the flood, they could.
You understand nothing Subduction and your comprehension of science is pathetic. You even admit that sedimentary processes other than water rarely hold fossils, then refuse to admit the logical conclussion, that almost everu single fossil bed found has been found in sedimentary rock created by water. Yes, a tiny fraction, less that 2% has been found in other rock types in extremely small quantities.
I don't need a link to your pseudoscientists for a flood theory, your lack of fossils in any other type of rock but sediments formed by water backs up flood theory whether they admit it or not. Fossils are indeed a rare event, except when there is a flood to cover up vast quantities of them, so that after some decay, thousands are still left.
During the flood, they could.
It is true that the majority of fossils are preserved in aqueously-deposited sediment. From this we can draw the conclusion that in the geologic past, auqueous depositional regimes were dominant. This is also what we see in the present. Thus it is by no means necessary to invoke a global flood to explain the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediments. You will agree that there has been no global flood in the last several thousand years and yet aqueous deposition is still dominant, so clearly the dominance of aqueously-deposited sediment does not imply a global Flood as you imagine.
This next point is made with the assumption that you, like most YECs, believe the entire rock record to be the product of the Flood, so please correct me if that assumption is erroneous.
Anyway, you admit that there are fossils preserved in terrestrially-deposited sediments. A good example is the dinosaur preserved in situ on its nest in aeolian deposits (Norell et al, 1995 - A nesting dinosaur). How can the Flood be responsible for the rock record if that record contains a terrestrial animal sitting undisturbed on its nest in terrestrially-deposited sediments?
And speaking of the fossil record, if it were entirely the result of the Flood as you believe, why is it organized the way it is? Why do we see certain organisms at certain levels but not at others? Why no dinosaurs in Precambrian strata? Why no pelycosaurs in Cretaceous strata? Why no flowers until the Late Cretaceous? If the fossil record were the result of a great, global Flood then surely all organisms would have been jumbled together so that essentially any fossil should be found in any layer? I have yet to see a YEC answer this question without invoking something laughably absurd like "They ran away from the flood at different speeds and so some only appear in higher strata". I assume you will not advocate such nonsense, but I will be pleased to address it should you do so.
A miracle is an exception to reality, not a rejection of it.
And yet you observe no fossils being formed in the present in any of these lakes, rivers, or oceans.
Since all of the evidence supports mountain building goes on over a geologic time period it is up to you to provide evidence that this could happen over an extremely short period of time.
No creationist has done so without causing real scientists to roll on the floor laughing inappropriate body parts off.
To more closely fit with the topic, a better question is what features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify the claim that mountain building occurred over the time periods flood proponents are proposing. What should we not see if mountains were built through rapid tectonic activity due to a recent global flood?
We would see huge areas of very recent igneous rock due to all of the heat released in this sort of activity. That is a start.
We can observe mountain building today by activities going on right now. We do not see anything that indicates a change in velocity of the plates, in fact we have a continual record of their position since the breakup of Pangaea 200 million years ago.
The problem with flood "geologists" is that they cannot explain how anything happened.
I completely agree, but do flood geologists? I would ask flood geologists that if these are not proper falsifications, then what would be?
Not just books ... THE books.Funny how the miracles you point to are found in books and not in reality,
Don't you mean I use those stories that reject reality?... and you use those stories to reject reality.
Not just books ... THE books.
Revelation 12:20b and the books were opened:
Don't you mean I use those stories that reject reality?
The map is not the territory.
Funny how the miracles you point to are found in books and not in reality, and you use those stories to reject reality.
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?