World Flood???

[Job 33:6]

i never said the Atlantic ocean had no water nor the photo show a Atlantic completely dried up.

its a good theory i agree certainly not proof no man has proof of something that was before man that is ignorance.

Ripple marks most certainly are proof that water existed in a place at some point in the past. What else would form them?

Especially if you have things like fossilized coral reefs in these same rocks.

It would be quite unreasonable to suggest that such areas historically were dry.

Just same, if an area has pillow basalts, it would be quite unreasonable to suggest that these areas were dry as well.

What you appear to have done is you've suggested that perhaps there was once land that was dry, and yet, when we look at this land, we see features that clearly demonstrate that water was in fact present.

 

[dóxatotheó]

theory is theory rather scientific or not, the write up was good but not 100% proof, no man was there and took notes,photos. providing good theories is not proof you seem to be appealing to ignorance.

two things you seem to dont know what appeal to ignorance mean and the amount of proof for wat i said is the amount of proof for micro evolution and making the argument like that is another fallacy people study the earth you know you dont have to be there to know theres such things as isotopes and compounds they answer everything for us

 

[BeyondET]

Ripple marks most certainly are proof that water existed in a place at some point in the past. What else would form them?

Especially if you have things like fossilized coral reefs in these same rocks.

It would be quite unreasonable to suggest that such areas historically were dry.

Just same, if an area has pillow basalts, it would be quite unreasonable to suggest that these areas were dry as well.

What you appear to have done is you've suggested that perhaps there was once land that was dry, and yet, when we look at this land, we see features that clearly demonstrate that water was in fact present.

'but of coarse so i don't know why you said Atlantic with no water that is why i questioned what you said about no water, because me nor the photo was about no water.

 

[Job 33:6]

'but of coarse so i don't know why you said Atlantic with no water that is why i questioned what you said about no water, because me nor the photo was about no water.

The image you displayed showed a largely dry Atlantic ocean. But not such dry space ever existed.

 

[BeyondET]

two things you seem to dont know what appeal to ignorance mean and the amount of proof for wat i said is the amount of proof for micro evolution and making the argument like that is another fallacy people study the earth you know you dont have to be there to know theres such things as isotopes and compounds they answer everything for us

to be 100% correct you do and the isotopos and compounds no one knows which came first.

 

[Job 33:6]

This image here for example. This is all just purely fabricated. These dry spaces, such as the mid oceanic ridge, contain features that demonstrate that these areas were not dry as depicted above. Such as ripple marks and pillow basalts.

Such a world (as depicted) never truly existed.

 

[BeyondET]

The image you displayed showed a largely dry Atlantic ocean. But not such dry space ever existed.

it was a example that is it, nothing of that photo was meant to be taken as fact. there is no way of knowing exactly where the old coast line was. the bible says seas in the beginning not oceans. seas are smaller bodies of water than oceans

 

[BeyondET]

View attachment 299938

This image here for example. This is all just purely fabricated. These dry spaces, such as the mid oceanic ridge, contain features that demonstrate that these areas were not dry as depicted above. Such as ripple marks and pillow basalts.

Such a world (as depicted) never truly existed.

it is all just purely fabricated in that photo duh, its the only one i could find for a example of lower ocean water table, your being way to trivial

 

[Job 33:6]

it was a example that is it, nothing of that photo was meant to be taken as fact. there is no way of knowing exactly where the old coast line was. the bible says seas in the beginning not oceans.

These oceans superpositionally predate mankind.

We can tell where historical coast lines are and were, as mentioned before because we have things like fossilized coral reefs, we have ripple marks, we have prehistoric alluvial fans, prehistoric continental shelves, prehistoric trans and regressive sequences etc.

And just as we know where water was, based on features such as those listed above, we also know where water was not based on other features such as animal trackways, root traces, regressive sequences, We also have prehistoric river systems where we can see meanders of prehistoric rivers. etc.

We do know where there was land and where there was not land in the past, predating people.

 

[BeyondET]

These oceans superpositionally predate mankind.

We can tell where historical coast lines are and were, as mentioned before because we have things like fossilized coral reefs, we have ripple marks, we have prehistoric alluvial fans, prehistoric continental shelves, prehistoric trans and regressive sequences etc.

And just as we know where water was, based on features such as those listed above, we also know where water was not based on other features such as animal trackways, root traces, regressive sequences etc.

yea just toss the bible out with the bath water ok. God didn't mean seas he meant oceans what was God thinking when he inspired the bible

 

[dóxatotheó]

to be 100% correct you do and the isotopos and compounds no one knows which came first.

haha you can be unsure of origin and still have a definitive explanation of origin yk they dk how the hydrogen holds the ocean but they are sure how the ocean originated you clearly didnt read what i typed and Isotopes are atoms of the same element that contain an identical number of protons, but a different number of neutrons and Compounds come about from combining of elements wat the heck are you talking about no one knows which came first do you know what your even talking about

 

[Job 33:6]

yea just toss the bible out with the bath water ok.

Are you doubting that if there are animal trackways in a layer of rock that this layer of rock was historically above water?

I'm not saying anything about scripture.

I'm just pointing out that you're incorrect in suggesting that we don't know where oceans and seas were or were not.

 

[BeyondET]

global flood No God it was a local event get with the program of science that is real.

 

[BeyondET]

Are you doubting that if there are animal trackways in a layer of rock that this layer of rock was historically above water?

I'm not saying anything about scripture.

I'm just pointing out that you're incorrect in suggesting that we don't know where oceans and seas were or were not.

our conversations started over a photo, and you never did answer why you left out part of that quote

 

[BeyondET]

haha you can be unsure of origin and still have a definitive explanation of origin yk they dk how the hydrogen holds the ocean but they are sure how the ocean originated you clearly didnt read what i typed and Isotopes are atoms of the same element that contain an identical number of protons, but a different number of neutrons and Compounds come about from combining of elements wat the heck are you talking about no one knows which came first do you know what your even talking about

yea science knows better than God. there was no global was there?

 

[BeyondET]

who wants to have fellowship like this forget it, later

 

[BeyondET]

Are you doubting that if there are animal trackways in a layer of rock that this layer of rock was historically above water?

I'm not saying anything about scripture.

I'm just pointing out that you're incorrect in suggesting that we don't know where oceans and seas were or were not.

i'm over it man later

 

[dóxatotheó]

yea science knows better than God. there was no global was there?

no complete opposite Science came about from people trying to figure out God and no there wasnt regional flood means that the flood has flooded the whole region where all lifeforms came about which was a whole land area cause Panagea is why i hold regional not global at the timeframe of the flood the Earth was in a state of tectonic plates erosions and massive seperation of Land so a global flood would be literally impossible but regional isnt

 

[dóxatotheó]

who wants to have fellowship like this forget it, later

this is a light discussion on a interpretation of Gods scripture me and Komat hold to this belief this is a discussion not a quarrel

 

[Job 33:6]

i'm over it man later

I just think that there are ways of going about supporting scripture without necessarily attacking science. When you say that we don't know where oceans or seas were in the past, or where land was in the past, whether you're aware of this or not, you're beginning an attack on things like geography and geology. Because through study, we actually do know these things. And more than just knowing them, they're actually very deeply well understood.

God gave us minds that are capable of investigating and solving problems.

To say that there are footprints in rock and therefore we know that the same rock was above water in the past, or to say that there is a fossilized coral reef in another rock and therefore that rock was underwater in the past,

These statements are not an attack on scripture. It's just an observation of creation.

And it's not man or science versus God. It's just people reflecting on what God has created.