Jump to content


Photo

An Interesting Problem With The Flood


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

#21 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:27 PM

You're missing the point. Floods dont form V or U shaped valleys, thick layers of sediment, or any number of other geographical features. A flood can hardly carve a mountain. How did all these features inconsistent with a flood get there?

View Post


Actually a flood is about the only thing that can create V, and U shaped valleys, thick layers of sediment, and any other geographical features. You must not understand the definition of flood, or flooded. Even the pictures you showed were once covered in Ice, which is essentially water. Whether you like it or not, they prove the areas were once flooded.

You're the one missing the point. Without floods, we wouldn't have hardly the vast amount of geographical features we have today.

Also, where did all the water from the Ice Age go and come from as well???

#22 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:23 PM

Actually a flood is about the only thing that can create V, and U shaped valleys, thick layers of sediment, and any other geographical features.  You must not understand the definition of flood, or flooded.  Even the pictures you showed were once covered in Ice, which is essentially water.  Whether you like it or not, they prove the areas were once flooded.

You're the one missing the point.  Without floods, we wouldn't have hardly the vast amount of geographical features we have today.

Also, where did all the water from the Ice Age go and come from as well???

View Post


Noun

flood (plural floods)

1. A (usually disastrous) overflow of water from a lake or other body of water due to excessive rainfall or other input of water.

I understand the definition of flood perfectly well, thank you. It does not mean, "When water in any form is present anywhere." As for your other question, it's already been addressed. During an ice age, the sea level drops because water is locked in ice. When the ice melts, the sea level rises again. As I've said twice now, the rising sea level at the end of the last ice age could be a source for flood myths.

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:32 PM

Noun

flood (plural floods)

1. A (usually disastrous) overflow of water from a lake or other body of water due to excessive rainfall or other input of water.

I understand the definition of flood perfectly well, thank you. It does not mean, "When water in any form is present anywhere." As for your other question, it's already been addressed. During an ice age, the sea level drops because water is locked in ice. When the ice melts, the sea level rises again. As I've said twice now, the rising sea level at the end of the last ice age could be a source for flood myths.

View Post


"I did not mean when water in any form is present anywhere." Of course you stated that most the formations on earth like V Shaped and large thick layers of sediment... which are commonly produced by floods, are not produced by floods, when they are in fact produced by floods.

Any moving body of water could create these. To say that floods could not do, and would not do it, is not factual.

#24 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:47 PM

"I did not mean when water in any form is present anywhere."  Of course you stated that most the formations on earth like V Shaped and large thick layers of sediment... which are commonly produced by floods, are not produced by floods, when they are in fact produced by floods.

Any moving body of water could create these.  To say that floods could not do, and would not do it, is not factual.

View Post


V shaped valleys are produced by steady erosion from moving water over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, i.e. a river. U shaped valleys are ground out with heavy pressure, i.e. a glacier. Floods produce large rectangular valleys. I realize that you are partially correct with sedimentation, though. Sedimentation happens whenever fast moving water is slowed down, so particles suspended in it can come to rest. A global flood could conceivably done that as the waters receded. It would depend on where and how the actual receding happened.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 August 2010 - 06:59 PM

Nortonthe2nd

Limestone forms over hundreds or thousands of years through the slow deposition of minerals carried in water. It is physically impossible for it to form in a flood. In fact, limestone is the first kind of rock to erode under those kind of circumstances, so its existence is evidence against the flood.


I am aware that this is the standard explanation. But from what I have seen in Missouri--this does not line up with the calm seas hypothesis.

As far as the flood--the death of the entire biosphere would have provided the resources that caused massive planktonic blooms. Not all lime mud is caused by plankton. Some of it is precipitated by chemical processes in the ocean, so it could have been preexistant as lime mud. Much of it could have been transported. Dessicaton happened after the floodwaters abated.

Limestone is mostly CaCO3--it required alot of calcium. This calcium would be preexistant in either model. Old or young earth.

Furthermore the abundance of fossils in bioclastic limstone argues against slow deposition--there would be few fossils at all in that case--as they would have decayed and or been eaten. Again multi strata folds and other signs in limestone argue that the limestone was soft and in turbid conditions--not calm marine conditions. THIS I have seen with my eyes.

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 28 August 2010 - 05:09 AM

Sedimentation happens whenever fast moving water is slowed down, so particles suspended in it can come to rest. A global flood could conceivably done that as the waters receded. It would depend on where and how the actual receding happened.

View Post

How slow? The fossil bearing sedimentary layers already argue for rapid burial of the animal and plant life. Slow sedimentaion will not produce them. To move that much sediment would take catastrophic waters. The bottom line is that flood geology predicts many marine fossils above land, as there would have been a mechanism for continental movement which standard tectonics lacks. This is exactly what we have.

#27 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 29 August 2010 - 12:04 AM

Nortonthe2nd
I am aware that this is the standard explanation.  But from what I have seen in Missouri--this does not line up with the calm seas hypothesis.

As far as the flood--the death of the entire biosphere would have provided the resources that caused massive planktonic blooms.  Not all lime mud is caused by plankton.  Some of it is precipitated by chemical processes in the ocean, so it could have been  preexistant as lime mud. Much of it could have been transported. Dessicaton happened after the floodwaters abated. 

Limestone is mostly CaCO3--it required alot of calcium.  This calcium would be  preexistant in either model.  Old or young earth.

Furthermore the abundance of fossils in bioclastic limstone argues against slow deposition--there would be few fossils at all in that case--as they would have decayed and or been eaten.  Again multi strata folds and other signs in limestone argue that the limestone was soft and in turbid conditions--not calm marine conditions.  THIS I have seen with my eyes.

View Post


There are few fossils. You know how you guys are always talking about the lack of "transitional fossils"? That's because fossilization is a rare event. Sometimes, conditions will exist for fossilization for a few thousand years in a certain place, which is where big fossil beds usually come from.

The problem with all fossils being laid down in the flood is that you would expect to find fossils of all types mixed up with each other. You would find fossils of mammals below early amphibians and fossils of dinosaurs with fossils of birds. Instead, fossils are clearly separated in layers depending on when they were laid down. You never find a mammal fossil in a layer that predates mammals or a bird fossil that predates birds. Also, radiometric dating agrees with the order of deposition. If the flood theory were correct, you would expect them all to date from the same time, and if radiometric dating were unreliable, you would expect them to have no particular order.

How slow?  The fossil bearing sedimentary layers already argue for rapid burial of the animal and plant life.  Slow sedimentaion will not produce them.  To move that much sediment would take catastrophic waters.  The bottom line is that flood geology predicts many marine fossils above land, as there would have been a mechanism for continental movement which standard tectonics lacks.  This is exactly what we have.

View Post


Do you understand tectonics? Continental movement is exactly what it predicts. That's what causes earthquakes. It's also what produces mountains such as the Himalayas, where two tectonic plates drive against each other and are forced up. The rock that's in the Himalayas used to be on the sea floor, as is the case for a lot of mountains.

#28 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 August 2010 - 06:17 PM

Also, radiometric dating agrees with the order of deposition. If the flood theory were correct, you would expect them all to date from the same time, and if radiometric dating were unreliable, you would expect them to have no particular order.

View Post



Good point.

#29 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:11 PM

It would be beneficial if Creationists would please read this article:

http://creation.com/...-should-not-use

nortonthe2nd, yes an ice age and glaciers/glacial flooding/glacial melting did form much of the geology we see today. I have articles to post later that answer some questions and statements made in this thread.

I also have an article on radiometric dating. I will gather these up and post them for everyone's benefit. :)

#30 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 September 2010 - 01:13 PM

nortonthe2nd, the Lake Missoula Flood actually gives us a good example of how floods shape the landscape and supports the idea of a global flood. The continental margin does not make sense from a slow and gradual viewpoint. Uniformatarian processes would favor a gradual descent to the ocean depths with no continental shelf or slope.

A good example for the rapid Flood deposition along the continental margin is in the Lake Missoula flood. The floodwater rushed through the Columbia Gorge and then slowed as it came to the wide mouth of the gorge in the Portland and Vancouver area. This wandering current then deposited a giant sand and gravel bar, called the Portland Delta, over 350 ft. thick covering an area greater than 200 miles. "Such deposition in waning currents would be similar to the formation of the continental shelf during the Flood. Later, the Portland Delta was dissected, where the Columbia and Willamette Rivers now flow, probably as the Lake Missoula flood subsided and the currents became more channelized. This later dissection would mimic the formation of the submarine canyons* after the deposition of the Portland Delta."-- Michael Oard, Flood by Design.

*Many hypotheses for the origin of the submarine canyons have been proposed, but geologists have rejected most of them. "Submarine Canyons have long been a geological enigma."--Von Der Borch. Michael Oard has a new hypotheses in his book based on the evidence left by other catastrophic occurrences such as the Lake Missoula Flood.

#31 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 September 2010 - 07:50 PM

It would be beneficial if Creationists would please read this article:

http://creation.com/...-should-not-use

nortonthe2nd, yes an ice age and glaciers/glacial flooding/glacial melting did form much of the geology we see today. I have articles to post later that answer some questions and statements made in this thread.

I also have an article on radiometric dating. I will gather these up and post them for everyone's benefit.  :)

View Post


Why read and abide by it? Is a creation ministry of size the last word in creation evidence? If creation is a work in progress, then the evidence that is not provable to some degree should be set aside for later findings. But ministries like this and AIG think that the evidence should never be used. That's wrong if you are truly looking for truth.

Since you bring this up, why don't you start a thread with all these things listed one by one and I will address them.

side note: Here is an example of what's wrong with that page.

The coal with human artifacts. they claim it's not true (trying to protect the old earth theory). They say that the artifacts are "always" never associated with the coal.

Posted Image

Door nobs in coal.

Posted Image

More human artifacts in coal.

This is one of many debunks I have for that page. So start another thread on this.

#32 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:15 AM

It would be beneficial if Creationists would please read this article:

http://creation.com/...-should-not-use


I agree with Ikester, this is not a good link. It's entitled ''Arguments we think creationists should NOT use'', yet some arguments there are very valid. Not exactly sure why a creationist website is attacking creationism and not evolution, in fact it openely attacks men like H*vind and Carl Baugh - trying to discredit them (which usually you see on atheist/evolution websites).

I sometimes use AIG, though not often. The only websites i really use are the 'Evolution Cruncher', this was a book published uploaded entirely online:

http://www.godrules....CruncherTOC.htm

#33 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 17 September 2010 - 04:27 AM

The coal with human artifacts. they claim it's not true (trying to protect the old earth theory). They say that the artifacts are "always" never associated with the coal.


I used to have a big list of these. You probably all ready know they are called OOPART's (Out of Place Artifacts), even a wiki links exists on some of them:

http://en.wikipedia....-place_artifact
http://en.wikipedia....i/Coso_Artifact
http://en.wikipedia....goodie_artifact

There are therefore 3 possible explanations:

1. They are a hoax or fake (unlikely since so many have been unearthed).
2. They prove there are errors in modern dating methods, and prove a young earth.
3. They prove an advanced civilization millions of years ago.

Atheists and evolutionists learn towards one, and these new-ager type people learn towards three. The most logical and scientific answer though is number 2.

There is a good book by M.Cremo on OOPART's, though unfortuantly his interpretation is number 3 (nontheless his work debunks evolution and details virtually every OOPART ever discovered).

Posted Image

#34 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 September 2010 - 07:54 AM

I also have an article on radiometric dating. I will gather these up and post them for everyone's benefit.  :)

View Post

http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

To the creationists: Okay... well, I definitely do not blindly believe everything that Creation Ministries says, but I do think that some arguments that YE people use do more harm than good when it comes to establishing credibility. I first starting looking into YE after I said a statement similar to the one in italics and someone challenged me to look into YE further. I did and I love what I see. I started with Ken Ham. I don't think that everything he says makes sense. For example: Why would animal not die and decay before the fall? Men are unique. I am not so sure that animals were meant to have eternal life.

Forbidden Archaeology
is actually on my want list. Thanks.

#35 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:08 AM

I will start another thread on the YE topics. :)

#36 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:39 PM

nortonthe2nd, the Lake Missoula Flood actually gives us a good example of how floods shape the landscape and supports the idea of a global flood. The continental margin does not make sense from a slow and gradual viewpoint. Uniformatarian processes would favor a gradual descent to the ocean depths with no continental shelf or slope.

A good example for the rapid Flood deposition along the continental margin is in the Lake Missoula flood. The floodwater rushed through the Columbia Gorge and then slowed as it came to the wide mouth of the gorge in the Portland and Vancouver area. This wandering current then deposited a giant sand and gravel bar, called the Portland Delta, over 350 ft. thick covering an area greater than 200 miles. "Such deposition in waning currents would be similar to the formation of the continental shelf during the Flood. Later, the Portland Delta was dissected, where the Columbia and Willamette Rivers now flow, probably as the Lake Missoula flood subsided and the currents became more channelized. This later dissection would mimic the formation of the submarine canyons* after the deposition of the Portland Delta."-- Michael Oard, Flood by Design.

*Many hypotheses for the origin of the submarine canyons have been proposed, but geologists have rejected most of them. "Submarine Canyons have long been a geological enigma."--Von Der Borch. Michael Oard has a new hypotheses in his book based on the evidence left by other catastrophic occurrences such as the Lake Missoula Flood.

View Post


Another interesting hypothesis. However, there are a few problems with it:
*Where did the water come from and where did it go to give that particular pattern?
*How were igneous and metamorphic rocks formed if the continents were formed by sedimentation?
*How come mountains still exist?
*Finally, how were smaller features such as canyons formed? These demonstrably require tens or hundreds of thousands of years to form according to the rate of erosion we see in modern rivers.

With regards to your first point, the continental shelves are mostly a product of plate tectonics, not erosion. Continental plates are much higher than oceanic plates, causing a steep drop where they meet. This drop is then softened into a softer slope through millions of years of sedimentary deposition. The Great Rift Valley in Africa is an example of this process in the early stages.

#37 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 September 2010 - 09:49 PM

Another interesting hypothesis. However, there are a few problems with it:
*Where did the water come from and where did it go to give that particular pattern?
*How were igneous and metamorphic rocks formed if the continents were formed by sedimentation?
*How come mountains still exist?
*Finally, how were smaller features such as canyons formed? These demonstrably require tens or hundreds of thousands of years to form according to the rate of erosion we see in modern rivers.

With regards to your first point, the continental shelves are mostly a product of plate tectonics, not erosion. Continental plates are much higher than oceanic plates, causing a steep drop where they meet. This drop is then softened into a softer slope through millions of years of sedimentary deposition. The Great Rift Valley in Africa is an example of this process in the early stages.

View Post


The water was covering the continents. When the water receded it first flowed off in sheets. Then the plate tectonics took on a vertical movement, creating mountains and valleys. (Besides a scientific hypothesis this is also spoken of in Psalms.) The water cut canyons rather quickly... which has been proven possible by catastrophic events such as the Mount Saint Helens eruption.

Well, my book has a nice diagram of the average continental slope that we see today (which actually rises at the edge) and what it should look like after a long period of time for erosion to occur (as it should have according to an old-earth/no-flood view), but I don't know how to prove any of that to you.

On another topic... I am of the opinion that the continents were shifted during the flood (not afterwards... that would be too catastrophic for afterwards), which caused a lot of volcanic activity... volcanic ash is known to cause unusually cool summer temperatures (snow in August).

Good Night! I look forward to further discussion.

#38 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:26 PM

What the? This is the second one of my posts that's vanished. Mods, are you removing them or something?

#39 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 18 September 2010 - 04:38 PM

For example: Why would animal not die and decay before the fall? Men are unique. I am not so sure that animals were meant to have eternal life.

Forbidden Archaeology
is actually on my want list. Thanks.

View Post


God created everything good in the beginning. There was no death, sickness/suffering. Death had not yet entered the world at that time. So all creatures lived in perfect harmony with one another. There was no fear of death, because they had not known death until the earth and it's inhabitants were under the curse as a result of the fall.

The difference is that human beings have an eternal soul. We are able to choose good, or we can choose to turn away from it. Our choices can have eternal consequences. We are indeed unique and have great capacity to reach the heights of holiness, or the depths of evil and depravation. No creature is like mankind. We can impact the entire world with our decisions (for good or bad).

#40 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:15 PM

What the? This is the second one of my posts that's vanished. Mods, are you removing them or something?

View Post

I am losing them too. It must be a forum glitch. I am sorry I missed it. :lol:


God created everything good in the beginning.  There was no death, sickness/suffering.   Death had not yet entered the world at that time.  So all creatures lived in perfect harmony with one another.   There was no fear of death, because they had not known death until the earth and it's inhabitants were under the curse as a result of the fall.

The difference is that human beings have an eternal soul.  We are able to choose good, or we can choose to turn away from it.  Our choices can have eternal consequences.   We are indeed unique and have great capacity to reach the heights of holiness, or the depths of evil and depravation.   No creature is like mankind.  We can impact the entire world with our decisions (for good or bad).

View Post

hmmmm... couldn't animals that die still be very good? Also, Adam and Eve could know from experience what death was, when they were warned of it. Most of the major YE stuff has this view and I just don't get it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)