Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

However , as we've often discussed , nearly every area of the world shows evidence of having been under the ocean at some point.

Well, if the flood were true, wouldn't EVERYWHERE have been flooded and flooded AT THE SAME TIME?

Yep.

maporsche wrote:

Nearly?

Yep. Nearly all show evidence

maporsche wrote:

At some point?

Your position (your meaning the Christian's bible) is that ALL was flooded at the SAME POINT in TIME.

Yep. That's why I said that Farmerman and I DISagree on WHEN these areas were undersea, not IF.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

No I have not read Wiens, but the fact that he is a Christian would have no effect on my impression of whatever he writes regarding dating. (Why should it?) I'll look it up online.

Im glad. He does an excellent job in a well reasoned and presented paper to explain why all of your presumptions are incorrect.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Of course they were uplifted. That is the point.

They were undersea (that's where the coral came from) and now Everest is a large mountain, the tallest in the world. But it wasn't always. At one point, the land that is now mountainous was undersea.

How do you know that, were you there to observe it? Sounds to me like all you have is circumstantial evidence.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

Yep. That's why I said that Farmerman and I DISagree on WHEN these areas were undersea, not IF.

No, you misquote me. There are many places on the planet where there has never been evidence that they were under a sea, (Canadian SHield, Australian Shield , The BAltic Shield etc) These are vast exposures of the exposed basement complex wherein it is the "surface of the earth"
Other areas , such as glacial moraines surficial vulcanic rocks (traps, ophiolites,serpentinites etc) are others. Also large deposits of desert rocks that have undergone diagenesis in dry climates.

All the rest of the planet that shows surface exoposures of water borne sediments are usually in structural, not sedimentary , contact , so they could NEVVER have been contemporaneous. If you look at the rocks of Everest (Quonmulangma and Luhtse) the marine rocks dive beneath surface deposits of granites, which dive beneath shales of deep ocean basins (These are certainly hardly "flood deposits").
The problem you cannot successfully answer is that , with all the tectonic contacts between formations of vastly different ages (determined by fossils, correlation, dating of faults, magnetostratigraphy, isotopes etc) how can you, with a strait face argue that these are of a Universal flood?.

Tell ya what, Ill do the geology and you stick with whatever it is youre good at.

0 Replies

real doesn't have a straight face; he also doesn't have any knowledge of geology or stratification of all land masses. His only source of knowledge is the bible. He's a one tome broken record with no substance, just gyration of the English langauge to suit his myopic brain.

0 Replies

I think you "misunderestimate" real life. I give him credit for asking the questions and rarely getting himself pinned in a corner where he would have to answer a question by himself.

His feeling that everyplace on earth was underwater at the same time is one of the first really silly admissions that hed cornered himself on. This was discussed many times before and all I recall him doing previously is asking questions or making broad statements and never being pinned, usually he would then disappear for a few days . Now hes gotta show some evidence of where we can see these "flood deposits" or else disappear for a few more days.

If corals are on the Lhotse, that means that the lohtse was a reef (thats not a flood deposit) however the surrounding formations (supra and sub) are of totally different types of rocks and include granites.

The only was he can validly show that flood deposits exist universally, is to take a "line of section" from any present land mass and show that there are contemporary flood deposits across this line. Ill bet my next 10 years salary he not only cant, but he has no idea what is a line of section.

To get him started, Its a standard tool in geology to draw inferences between places of varying distances from which we can interpret structure, strat, mineral deposits etc. Its a totally objective data based tool that every 2nd year geology student learns how to manipulate. You draw a line of a few thousand klicks and represent the geology formations on that line

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
Yep. That's why I said that Farmerman and I DISagree on WHEN these areas were undersea, not IF.

No, you misquote me. There are many places on the planet where there has never been evidence that they were under a sea, (Canadian SHield, Australian Shield , The BAltic Shield etc) These are vast exposures of the exposed basement complex wherein it is the "surface of the earth"
Other areas , such as glacial moraines surficial vulcanic rocks (traps, ophiolites,serpentinites etc) are others. Also large deposits of desert rocks that have undergone diagenesis in dry climates.

All the rest of the planet that shows surface exoposures of water borne sediments are usually in structural, not sedimentary , contact , so they could NEVVER have been contemporaneous. If you look at the rocks of Everest (Quonmulangma and Luhtse) the marine rocks dive beneath surface deposits of granites, which dive beneath shales of deep ocean basins (These are certainly hardly "flood deposits").
The problem you cannot successfully answer is that , with all the tectonic contacts between formations of vastly different ages (determined by fossils, correlation, dating of faults, magnetostratigraphy, isotopes etc) how can you, with a strait face argue that these are of a Universal flood?.

Tell ya what, Ill do the geology and you stick with whatever it is youre good at.

Would the pillow lava in the Canadian Shield indicate that it was once underwater?

0 Replies

Underwater? Like in a world wide flood? As in Noah's ark?

Quote:

Like everything else in the Christian/Jewish bible Noah's Ark is pagan mythology. It is the retelling of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written at least 1000 years prior, they just changed a few names and embellished it with Jewish tradition.

Just about every ancient culture has a got a flood myth. All at different times. For f@cks sake wake up, pull your head out of the sand and stop annoying and wasting everyone's time with your pathetic outpouring of useless drivel.

0 Replies

the Epic of Gilgamesh here:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Underwater? Like in a world wide flood? As in Noah's ark?

Quote:
Like everything else in the Christian/Jewish bible Noah's Ark is pagan mythology. It is the retelling of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" written at least 1000 years prior, they just changed a few names and embellished it with Jewish tradition.

Just about every ancient culture has a got a flood myth. All at different times. For f@cks sake wake up, pull your head out of the sand and stop annoying and wasting everyone's time with your pathetic outpouring of useless drivel.

Hi Wilso,

How do YOU think that coral came to be atop Mt. Everest, the world's tallest mountain?

How about the Andes mountains, which contain large sedimentary strata? Obviously this real estate was underwater at some point, was it not?

We may DISagree on WHEN it was, but I hardly think you can dispute that it was underwater at some point.

So our disagreement is chiefly in the dating of these formations, not in their composition. We would have to agree that they were underwater at some point in history.

If nearly all points on the globe, even the highest mountains, bear evidence of having been underwater, perhaps you should give this some thought and formulate a more reasoned reply.

Or maybe all of the ancient storytellers who passed along the Flood story thru different cultures over the centuries were just incredibly LUCKY that the worlds mountain ranges bear evidence that is consistent with their story that these lands were all underwater.

Do you think they are just lucky guessers?

0 Replies

rl, pillow basalts arent IN the Canadian Shield, theyre along its margins. The rocks of pillow basalts are deep water rocks that had to nbe emplaced at depth, then raised and eroded, and then later rocks deposited in structural contact with the pillows, then the entire shebang has to be eroded again (oh, whenever its eroded, its abovesea level) So that makes a stretch in credulity to try to compare and correlate the strip of pillow basalts with, say, the NEw Jersey Coastal Plain.

Oh and as for the rocks of Everest having corals, the entire side of the Lhotse massif is without any sedimentary rocks , only continental greenschists and granitic and light colored (continental) metamorphics> SO, that means that Everest had to be deposited and raised AFTER the flood(i no flood sediments sticking to them in any fashion or on any talus) . According to you then, the rocks would be about 6000 years old. So that would mean that they rise at a rate of about 4.3 ft/year and are pushed from Nepal into China at about 4 miles per year. Maybe nobody noticed this movement because it all occured during the night when everyone was asleep.

0 Replies

...just remeber, if you want to strictly adhere to the science of man, and in this context discuss a planet "plagued" by an "epic flood" ... then you have to go to a globe that currently has no water...

0 Replies

Farmerman - You're a geologist right? Can you answer a question for me?

If following ID the world was covered in water, meaning no ground was exposed, what volume of water based on the surface area of the earth would be required to do such a thing? Further, is there enough water in gas, liquid, or solid form to achieve such a thing, further the removal of said water, what kind of atmospheric conditions would need to be present to freeze all the water without making the planet desolate.

If I've asked you questions outside of your disipline, sorry. I deal with space stuff, not earth sciences.

0 Replies

Understand that RL does not believe the present mountains existed at the time of the Flood. He claims they rose after the Flood. In this way he is trying to reduce the amount of water need to flood the earth. Of course he has no evidence for this but he has no evidence for anything he believes.

I'm not sure what RL position is on the source of the water or what happen to it after the Flood. If it went down a giant drainhole I would like to know where it is.

0 Replies

When he water levels went down in the bible didn't the ark land on top of a mountain? Doesn't that stil lat least imply that the water would have to deep enough to cover a mountain?

What height defines a mountain?

0 Replies

The usual story goes, people make mountains out of mole hills. Might be a hint.

0 Replies

In support of this grandiosation(my creation) of this planet in the bible, have you ever visited Israel? The River Jordan is really a creek, and the Sea of Galilee is a lake. Conclusion: a mountain is really a small hill.

0 Replies

There would be no amount of water presently available to account for a flood of such magnitude. It would be trillions of acre feet of excess water needed. The Creationists have proposed a "vapor cloud" above the earth in which all this water was held against gravity by some supernatural (Im guessing) force. Mountains were accounted for in Genesis and while te vapor cloud story has gotten some play, Im not certain that the entire flood myth isnt waning in popularity. It flies in the face of so many sciences that to call it ridiculous imparts some credibility to it.

To account for a short-lived floodists world would require the total suspension of most laws and theories in science.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I'm not sure what RL position is on the source of the water or what happen to it after the Flood. If it went down a giant drainhole I would like to know where it is.

The Bible lists two sources for the water.

As to 'where it went', the Earth is still 75-80% covered with water.

I don't think it 'went' anywhere . It's still here.

There's plenty of water here to cover the land surfaces, especially if many of the present day mountains were lower or non-existent (many modern mountains show evidence of having been underwater real estate at some point, i.e. coral, sedimentary rock, etc ) and/or if the land surfaces were basically all in one continent instead of spread out at greater distances as they are now.

0 Replies

real, the ratio of water to land mass changes as more land is created from volcanic activity. Water doesn't evaporate and disappear, and more land vs water on the surface means constriction of available water to smaller and smaller areas - or higher and higher - not less or "lower."

What happened to all that water from the flood?

Another Moses miracle?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know