That is one of the most plainly fallacious statements I've seen in quite a while.
Sedimentary rocks are less than 10 percent of Earth's crust by volume, and far less than 1% of Earth's total volume.
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.
Other than volcanic rock, most all geology is formed from water deposition, world wide.
That pretty much explains it.
Because it's not a reproducible experiment, the question is limited to science-fiction explanations.
Plus, the date of the Flood is not given.
Or the same myth that arose from some large local flood.Logically both are referring to the same event.
By not being a creationist. All you have to do, then, is post something. No matter what your post will say, they'll call it equivocating (they just like using that word... a lot), and ban you.
True story.
Virtually anybody that is not a creationist gets banned there. They make up one excuse or another to ban those of us who more carefully followed the rules than the mods but are not "ome of them." The reason given is usually an accusation of "equivocation" or "wasting people's time"....the sad irony is that the fact that if equivocation is present there it is most usually coming from mods who are posting about "empirical evidence." They offer knee-jerk posts parroting the claim that there is no empirical evidence in favor of evolution or an old earth, but claim that experimentation or observation by "creation scientists" is valid empirical evidence whether or not it is valid or relevant to to the topic.
I think we could all name half a dozen creationists here who do nothing but waste everyone's time on complete and utter foolishness and stupidity, but are apparently 'protected'.
Since when is identification requisite on reproducibility? We've got full knowledge of which sedimentary structures form in which depositional regimes, we know what sedimentary deposits look like when water levels are rising or falling, and we know what water-saturated soils look like, even ancient ones in the rock record. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to identify the deposits and effects of a global flood if they existed.
I'm not interested in claims to know all there is to know about evidence; I'm interested in finding out about the experiment. If knowledge can only be obtained via experiment, surely someone had to have done one. Why not wait and see what your comrades come up with?
The evidence against a world wide flood was presented by Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology where he promotes uniformitarianism.One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice.
The fire has not come yet. The flood is like water baptism and the water cleansed the Earth. At the end of this age the earth will be cleansed with fire.So let me get this straight, before the flood there was a WW fire
According to NASA the probability of an April 13, 2036 impact of 99942 Apophis is considered to be 1 in 250,000. If Apophis were to hit in the ocean that could cause a Tsunami. Although Tsunami's are usually caused by earthquakes. They will not know for sure until after April 13, 2029 what the chance of impact is.The global fire would precede the tsunami that followed.
There is no experiment, just the fact that any such evidence for a global flood does not exist. As a matter of fact, the basic field of geology was given rise by people in the 17th century, many of whom were clergy, looking for evidence of Noah's flood. What they found was evidence that no such flood had ever occurred.
They didn't have a date or know the conditions. Nobody does.
Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.
Having a date has no bearing on what they did or did not find. The fact is that all floods leave unmistakable flood debris. A flood as described in the Bible would be even more prolific. A flood of such magnitude would leave flood debris in a single layer of strata all of the same age and in the same layer of strata globally. No such layer of debris exists anywhere in the geologic column.
How about you show us the experiments that proved there was a global flood first? Let's start with that.
The evidence against a world wide flood was presented by Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology where he promotes uniformitarianism.
Science requires a reproducible event.
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?