cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
nwobcw
Advisor

Re: Wow!

  Try a D-9.

0 Kudos
SouthWestOhio
Senior Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

chipster I don't mean to burst your bubble but there is a difference between carving canyons in sandy soil or through rock.

0 Kudos
chipster22
Veteran Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

I probably took this thread off topic.

 

However, to reply about the rock taking longer to erode, obviously that is true, but why assume the sedimentary rock was solid when it was carved?  It could have still been in the more sandy form and hardened later.

 

As to imagining all the water necessary to cover the whole Earth:  There is no need to imagine it.  The water is still right here in the oceans.  The mountains could have been much lower at the time of the worldwide flood and the ocean basins much shallower.  Put those two things together and the whole world could easily be flooded to a great depth.  If it seems hard to believe this could have happened, then remember again how we are trained to think in terms of millions of years.  Things, like mountains rising, actually happened relatively rapidly.

 

Again, sorry for taking this thread off topic, but there are real answers to the questions posed if a person is willing to think in non-evolutionary terms.

 

 

0 Kudos
Farmer Deere
Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

We also have more recent examples of natural catastrophes that give us clues.  Anyone remember the Tsunami's in Japan and Indonesia?  How about the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens 31 years ago?  Imagine the Tsunami that could be triggered by by a worldwide earthquake encircling the globe.  Not hard to envision walls of water worldwide several hundred feet in depth.  Or try to explain the amazing rock layers in Grand Canyon, some of which are bent sharply and still intact.  Obviously the rocks were formed rather quickly and the canyon also in relative terms.  Evolutionary geology certainly does not supply a satisfactory answer to any of this, but those bent on dismissing a divine creator outside and separate from this universe will hang on to any idea, no matter how ludicrous, rather than acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there's really something more.

 

Thanks Chipster22 for interjecting thoughts to keep this from becoming just another commentary on the power of the weather.  We've all heard enough of them.

0 Kudos
dapper7
Senior Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

if fort peck fails, we will see things never before imagined

0 Kudos
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?


@chipster22 wrote:

I probably took this thread off topic.

 

However, to reply about the rock taking longer to erode, obviously that is true, but why assume the sedimentary rock was solid when it was carved?  It could have still been in the more sandy form and hardened later.

 

As to imagining all the water necessary to cover the whole Earth:  There is no need to imagine it.  The water is still right here in the oceans.  The mountains could have been much lower at the time of the worldwide flood and the ocean basins much shallower.  Put those two things together and the whole world could easily be flooded to a great depth.  If it seems hard to believe this could have happened, then remember again how we are trained to think in terms of millions of years.  Things, like mountains rising, actually happened relatively rapidly.

 

Again, sorry for taking this thread off topic, but there are real answers to the questions posed if a person is willing to think in non-evolutionary terms.

 

 


Yes chipster this is probably more of a forum topic BUT I must point out there is no evidence of the rock being 'soft' when it was eroded. i think there was recent evidence that the Grand Canyon started forming 10 or 15 million years ago and some of the rock exposed in the bottom is billions of years old. Now how could all those layers of rocks from different time periods be soft when the water got to them?

Yes all the water is still here and it has never covered all the earths surface at any time let alone the very short time man has been around.

Not sure why anyone would think in anything except evolutionary terms since that is the only thing that has any evidence of happening.

0 Kudos
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?


@Farmer Deere wrote:

We also have more recent examples of natural catastrophes that give us clues.  Anyone remember the Tsunami's in Japan and Indonesia?  How about the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens 31 years ago?  Imagine the Tsunami that could be triggered by by a worldwide earthquake encircling the globe.  Not hard to envision walls of water worldwide several hundred feet in depth.  Or try to explain the amazing rock layers in Grand Canyon, some of which are bent sharply and still intact.  Obviously the rocks were formed rather quickly and the canyon also in relative terms.  Evolutionary geology certainly does not supply a satisfactory answer to any of this, but those bent on dismissing a divine creator outside and separate from this universe will hang on to any idea, no matter how ludicrous, rather than acknowledge that maybe, just maybe there's really something more.

 

Thanks Chipster22 for interjecting thoughts to keep this from becoming just another commentary on the power of the weather.  We've all heard enough of them.


You are dreaming up excuses to explain something that never happened.

I understand that part of the reason the Grand Canyon exists is because of part of the landscape there is 'uplifting' Think it has risen quite a substantial amount over millions of years. That is why and how rock layers get bent.

As for a 'divine creator' when you have evidence of this magical being be sure to tell the world and then you will be able to refute the scientific evidence of geology evolving over millions of years. Until then science is the answer and is continuing to fill in gaps in our knowledge all the time.

It is good to question things but you have to be honest in your questioning and accept the correct answer when it is backed up with proof not folklore and 'magic'.

0 Kudos
chipster22
Veteran Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

Why do you assume the rock layers come from different time periods?  It is more likely that they were formed over a short period of time because there is little evidence of erosion on the top of one layer before the next was laid down.  They were likely all put down over a period of about a year as the flood waters carried different sediments into the area.

 

How could there possibly be evidence of the Grand Canyon forming 10 or 15 million years ago unless you start with  the assumption that things took that long?  How could that be proven other than in an invalid circular argument?  No one would have been there with a stopwatch and just because we have had millions of years drummed into our heads to make evolution work doesn't mean the long time periods are true.

 

As for the claim that there is no evidence that the rock was soft when it was eroded, I would say that the very fact that it is deeply eroded is evidence that it was soft when it was carved.  But then I'm starting with an assumption of a younger Earth just as you are starting with an assumption for a very old Earth.  To say there is no evidence that rock was soft shows that you can't see past your own bias.

 

 

0 Kudos
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?


@chipster22 wrote:

Why do you assume the rock layers come from different time periods?  It is more likely that they were formed over a short period of time because there is little evidence of erosion on the top of one layer before the next was laid down.  They were likely all put down over a period of about a year as the flood waters carried different sediments into the area.

 

How could there possibly be evidence of the Grand Canyon forming 10 or 15 million years ago unless you start with  the assumption that things took that long?  How could that be proven other than in an invalid circular argument?  No one would have been there with a stopwatch and just because we have had millions of years drummed into our heads to make evolution work doesn't mean the long time periods are true.

 

As for the claim that there is no evidence that the rock was soft when it was eroded, I would say that the very fact that it is deeply eroded is evidence that it was soft when it was carved.  But then I'm starting with an assumption of a younger Earth just as you are starting with an assumption for a very old Earth.  To say there is no evidence that rock was soft shows that you can't see past your own bias.

 

 


Bring this to the forum where we can have a discussion without bothering marketing.

BTW I have no bias, just listen to what science finds out.

Believing that it was formed in a short time period certainly shows bias. Bias to a believe that can not be substantiated by the existing evidence, rules of physics bent, indeed broken, to agree with your 'beliefs' instead of used to ferret out the truth.

0 Kudos
peaceman
Frequent Contributor

Re: Does This Flood Damage Look Real?

Canuck

 

I am sorry this turned in to an evolutionary debate.  It was not intended to be. 

 

First of all we are now talking about Noah.  Before Noah the earth had no knowledge of rain.  There was no great tsunami.  There was a firmament.  A vault to seperate the oceans from waters above.  The crops were watered by the roots because of the water table being so high.  This firmament forced pressure on the earth.  This created a hyper oxygen and carbon environment.  This is what made people live so long and made plant tissue get so large.  This is why the people made fun of Noah,  they had never seen rain led alone flooding.  When science accepts the high pressure of a firmament environment all there carbon dating and everything else will be thrown out. 

 

As far as current billion year science and evolution.  I hope they can figure out how to explain there way out of hell using that.