[_ Old Earth _] Thirty-Year Secret Leads to Evidence of Worldwide Flood

[Patashu]

So what world-wide geological layer corresponds to the global flood?

If I point at a geological layer, can you definitively tell me whether the global flood laid it down or not?

 

[John]

So what world-wide geological layer corresponds to the global flood?

If I point at a geological layer, can you definitively tell me whether the global flood laid it down or not?

Hard to say, but the fact that we even have these layers insists them being laid by large amounts of water, especially because there is fossils in them.

 

[Patashu]

So what world-wide geological layer corresponds to the global flood?

If I point at a geological layer, can you definitively tell me whether the global flood laid it down or not?

Hard to say, but the fact that we even have these layers insists them being laid by large amounts of water, especially because there is fossils in them.

I understand that some geological layers require large amounts of water to lay them down, but how do we therefore conclude that they were all laid down in the exact same flood in the absence of a global, all-encompassing 'flood' geological layer, indicating that at one point in time there was nothing but water upon the Earth? When we in fact see all 'flood' layers being disconnected doesn't that point to evidence of separate, non-global floods, which we know for a fact can and still do happen?

 

[BobRyan]

Easy.


============ < ---- Post Flood Rock Layers Due to over flowing lake or similar
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ <----- Desert Formed after Flood
============ <----- Sediment deposited by great flood

Not as radically "imaginative" as "Hymalayas shoot up off the ocean floor" -- but still.. :D

 

[jmm9683]

Not as radically "imaginative" as "Hymalayas shoot up off the ocean floor" -- but still.. :D

Let me guess, plate tectonics are the work of the devil.

 

[Barbarian]

It's kind of interesting to see all the tapdancing. And with each tap, fewer and fewer layers actually belong to the Great Worldwide Flood®. Now Bob is telling us that the great flood ended before the dinosaurs.

Interesting...

 

[Patashu]

Easy.


============ < ---- Post Flood Rock Layers Due to over flowing lake or similar
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ <----- Desert Formed after Flood
============ <----- Sediment deposited by great flood

Not as radically "imaginative" as "Hymalayas shoot up off the ocean floor" -- but still.. :D

Since when was about plate tectonics about things shooting up or in any direction for that matter? Shall I quote to you the measured and recorded drift of the continental plates to give you a sense of scale?

 

[BobRyan]

The point is that the story about Hymalayas shooting up off the ocean floor - is more of a story than the claim by those who see flood extinction evidence of prehistoriic animals (hint the subject of this thread) occurs in a geography that is not "exactly as we see it today".

The point remains.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

The point is that the story about Hymalayas shooting up off the ocean floor - is more of a story than the claim by those who see flood extinction evidence of prehistoriic animals (hint the subject of this thread) occurs in a geography that is not "exactly as we see it today".

The point remains.

Bob

You're saying the evidence of the flood is so strong that you can safely ignore evidence of plate movement?

 

[BobRyan]

No I am making the much more obvious point that flood model clailm of catestrophic change in geography (in this case 4500 years ago) we have a "geography has changed" argument and the mechanism is the world wide flood -- having both geothermal and atmospheric impact according to that model.

When I point to the story of "Himalayas shooting up off the ocean floor" I am simply pointing to the fact that even the evolutionists have this idea of "geography changing" so the vapid arguments against the flood model of the form "yes but geography does not change" are simply a defense mechanism - not reason when made by atheist tied to wildly changing geography model.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

I assume you actually mean geology, since geography doesn't really make sense in this context. And I still have no idea what you're actually getting at.

 

[BobRyan]

Geology is the study of the rocks

Geography is a reference to the form and shape of the earth's surface.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Geography is much broader than that, and can include human populations movement, etc.

Geology is more than the study, and is also the science in general.

 

[BobRyan]

Well -- this isn't "social studies" so I am hoping that some of our atheist darwinists and those who follow them will see that we are talking about the form the earth takes over time as geologic and atmospheric events impact geography.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Incidentally, the Himalayas are still "shooting" up; the collision of the Indian Subcontinent with Asia isn't over. India is moving northward into Asia, and the Himalayas are moving upward at measurable velocities of a few centimeters per year.

Bob is, as usual, wrong.

 

[Snidey]

And it's not just the Himalayas. The movement of every plate, at rates that match up perfectly with the common understanding of geological history, can be easily measured today.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm - so they claim that geography changes in response to catestrophic geoligic events!!

What a concept!

Oh no wait! "Catestrophic" as in the example in the OP??

-- "Well -- not if the events are "catestrophic"??? Does that make sense to any darwinian evolutionist here?

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Hmmm - so they claim that geography changes in response to catestrophic geoligic events!!

If you think crust moving at 2 cm per year is a "catastrophic event", I guess. But of course, in English, that isn't what it means.

 

[Snidey]

lol

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm - so they claim that geography changes in response to catestrophic geoligic events!!

If you think crust moving at 2 cm per year is a "catastrophic event", I guess. But of course, in English, that isn't what it means.

Hmmm - so they claim that geography changes in response to catestrophic geoligic events!!

What a concept!

Oh no wait! "Catestrophic" as in the example in the OP??


-- "Well -- not if the events are "catestrophic"???


Does that make sense to any darwinian evolutionist here?

Apparently we have some darwinist devotees who take that very position on this thread!

How "surprising".

Bob