Jump to content


Photo

An Interesting Problem With The Flood


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

#41 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 - 07:48 PM

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

View Post


There was no death before the fall. Death was the result of the fall. Adam and Eve did not know death at that time, but they were told of it by God - given warning that if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they would die. They disobeyed God and ate of it after Eve was tempted by a dissenting voice (The snake - Devil) and in doing so, brought a curse over the entire earth and all its inhabitants. So sickness/suffering/death entered the world through the disobedience of two people.

#42 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 - 08:00 PM

There was no death before the fall.   Death was the result of the fall.  Adam and Eve did not know death at that time, but they were told of it by God - given warning that if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they would die.  They disobeyed God and ate of it after Eve was tempted by a dissenting voice (The snake - Devil) and in doing so, brought a curse over the entire earth and all its inhabitants.   So sickness/suffering/death entered the world through the disobedience of two people.

View Post

Okay, well, yes... I do believe the animals were peaceful before the fall, so I am warming to the idea.

#43 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 19 September 2010 - 12:30 PM

I would say that based on Pauline teachings-- the epistles of Paul--that "death" entered into the world because of Adam and Eve. And according to Paul also "death" is the last enemy that will be destroyed in the end. That also death is a result of sin. Most of this is found in the book of Romans.

These are basic doctrines of the Christian faith which did not originate from a denomination, or a theologian's interpretation, but from the Apostle Paul himself, who wrote 2/3 of the NT.

#44 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 19 September 2010 - 01:33 PM

Bear with me for a moment. So, I live in Oregon. About a two hour drive from my house, you can find the remains of some of the largest floods in (scientifically accepted) history. They were called the Missoula Floods, and they occurred at the end of the last ice age, about 15,000 years ago. Essentially, as the ice sheets covering North America began to melt, enormous lakes formed in the center, held back by ice dams. Over time, these ice dams weakened, until the entire lake would break free at once. These lakes held amounts of water comparable to one of the Great Lakes, which went roaring down through what is now southern Canada, Montana, Washington, and northern Oregon. They left some extremely distinctive marks:
Posted Image
These terraced cliffs show the paths that the flood carved out.

Posted Image
These enormous boulders were carried hundreds of miles by the floods.

Posted Image
These rolling hills are actually giant ripple marks.
For more, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scablands

So, my question is, if there was a flood of even greater size only 6000 years ago, how come the entire world doesnt look like this?

View Post


I think many scientists ignore evidence in order to go with the flow. I rarely get intelligent answers about continental limestone thousands of feet above sea level. It is basically excused by a tectonics theory which has no effective mechanism. But that's another issue.

I really don't think people realize just what a testimony of water limestone is. The Canadian Rockies are made up of limestone--what--look it up. Dinosaur fossils are found in calcareous sediments. Did dinosaurs fall in coral reefs and lay there until the reefs eroded into mud? Of course this is impossible. People just ignore it. Just like they ignored the evidence in the scablands for decades.

Look for yourselves on I55 south of St Louis. For hundreds of miles you will see limestone hills. Some stratified and some unstratified. Some of the unstratified is right next to the stratified. The modern explanation of slow sedimentation doesn't fit this scenario. I could go on but I have to go

#45 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 19 September 2010 - 01:37 PM

I would say that based on Pauline teachings-- the epistles of Paul--that "death" entered into the world because of Adam and Eve.  And according to Paul also "death" is the last enemy that will be destroyed in the end.  That also death is a result of sin.  Most of this is found in the book of Romans.

These are basic doctrines of the Christian faith which did not originate from a denomination, or a theologian's interpretation, but from the Apostle Paul himself, who wrote 2/3 of the NT.

View Post

I am well aware that Paul stated in inspired scripture that "Death spread to all men because they had all sinned."

Thank you for the input. I started a new thread on this topic in the Bible Questions area.

#46 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 21 September 2010 - 06:58 PM

Limestone takes a long time to form? Five exquisitely preserved octopus fossils encased in limestone were found in Lebanon.

http://livescience.c...il-octopus.html

A "rapid sedimentation rate" is exactly what would occur in the worldwide flood. In fact, there is evidence that many of the creatures were buried alive.

Edit: Hmmm... none of the articles sited on this find are mentioning the limestone, except the one in Creation Magazine. :blink: Here is one: http://www.tonmo.com...iloctopuses.php

Here is an article about limestone fossils: http://www.ehow.com/...ne-fossils.html Am I the only one who was told that fossil formation requires rapid burial? This was at a museum touting the billions of years theory.

#47 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 21 September 2010 - 07:11 PM

Limestone takes a long time to form? Five exquisitely preserved octopus fossils encased in limestone were found in Lebanon.

http://livescience.c...il-octopus.html

A "rapid sedimentation rate" is exactly what would occur in the worldwide flood. In fact, there is evidence that many of the creatures were buried alive.

View Post


Yeah, I didn't want to deviate, but the OP asks why doesn't the entire world look like the scablands? Well, the scablands are a result of a glacial outburst flood. But look--that water cut through basalt and formed canyons--which is very hard rock. There are water gaps throughout the world going through mountains. SO there is plenty of water evidence all over. Massive water if it cuts through mountains.

My question is where did all that water come from in the first place that made the massive ice sheets over Canada and the northern U.S?

#48 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 21 September 2010 - 07:24 PM

My question is where did all that water come from in the first place that made the massive ice sheets over Canada and the northern U.S?

View Post

Is that a serious question? Michael Oard has written a great deal about the cause of the ice age. I could present a little of his hypothesis if you like. I don't really know of any other hypotheses regarding the cause of the ice sheets. Sub-zero temperatures such as they claim characterized the ice age are generally very dry.

I just saw your post about the limestone. I must have missed it before. :blink: Sorry.

#49 Greasy Joe

Greasy Joe

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Iowa

Posted 21 September 2010 - 07:43 PM

Yeah, I didn't want to deviate, but the OP asks why doesn't the entire world look like the scablands?  Well, the scablands are a result of a glacial outburst flood.  But look--that water cut through basalt and formed canyons--which is very hard rock.  There are water gaps throughout the world going through mountains. SO there is plenty of water evidence all over.  Massive water if it cuts through mountains.


Wait wait wait mountains are caused by tectonic plate shifts. "water gaps"? You kinda lost me there.

#50 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 21 September 2010 - 07:47 PM

Wait wait wait mountains are caused by tectonic plate shifts.  "water gaps"?   You kinda lost me there.

View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_gap

"A water gap is an opening or notch which flowing water has carved through a mountain range."

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Wallula_Gap

http://www.examiner....eving-is-seeing

#51 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 22 September 2010 - 06:20 PM

Is that a serious question? Michael Oard has written a great deal about the cause of the ice age. I could present a little of his hypothesis if you like. I don't really know of any other hypotheses regarding the cause of the ice sheets. Sub-zero temperatures such as they claim characterized the ice age are generally very dry.

I just saw your post about the limestone. I must have missed it before.  :) Sorry.

View Post

Hey mamael,
The question was rhetorical. I think it's ironic that people can't believe in the flood, yet they listen to NOVA tell us about mile thick ice sheets :o That's alot of ICCCCCEE!!!

Go ahead and do something by Oard if you want. You don't have to ask me--I just work here :P. The OP is basically asking for catastrophic water evidence. Yeah, Oard has done alot of research.

About the limestone--I don't know if you've had a chance to see all the hills and passes on I55 south of St. Louis, but it's classic. You'll see folded, of course unfaulted strata-- a sign that the strata were wet when bent. If it was heat like they like to say, that means it went down into the earth and came back up to the surface--AND it would be marble or something else-- a metamorphose of limestone. So it was wet--we know lithified rock doesn't bend without faulting--when will they ever get this?

Unstratified and stratified juxtaposed to each other. Hello---that doesn't work under an old earth model. You can't have a big mashed potato glop of indurated lime mud next to stratified limestone. How does one explain that in a millions of years scenario??

Tubular hollows, like open caves--on top of some of the passes. They look smoothed out like rock beds in some streams I've seen. Definitely a sign of moving water.

Also a few very large boulders, not under cliffs, but a bit isolated. Possibly broken off, but no sign of breakage--they are roundish.

Also--I have a hard time believing that 150 feet high cliffs right next to a pasture signifies erosion between it and the next hill. Why wouldn't ALL of it erode away. Limestone will weather with water--why would some of it weather away and then a 150 foot hill just sits there with a big cliff. I find fast erosion between hills and transport of pre-existing lime mud a good explanation. Though I would like to see research of this area by Austin, Oard, or someone more qualified than I.

#52 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 22 September 2010 - 06:26 PM

Hey mamael,
The question was rhetorical.  I think it's ironic that people can't believe in the flood, yet they listen to NOVA tell us about mile thick ice sheets :) That's alot of ICCCCCEE!!!

Go ahead and do something by Oard if you want.  You don't have to ask me--I just work here  :o. The OP is basically asking for catastrophic water evidence.  Yeah, Oard has done alot of research. 

View Post

Okay, I was wondering. :P

Yes, Michael Oard could answer most of the OPs questions. Flood By Design would be the place to start, IMHO.

#53 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 22 September 2010 - 07:37 PM

Wait wait wait mountains are caused by tectonic plate shifts.  "water gaps"?   You kinda lost me there.

View Post

I understand they are--water gaps are passes that were formed by catastrophic water.

Delaware Water Gap
Posted Image

Posted Image

Unfortunately, "actualists" are still so committed to old earth principles, the explanation is that the river was already there, and as the mountains uplifted slowly, the river eroded the gap. Yet in the Scablands, the canyons are attributed to 500 cubic miles of water cutting them catastrophically.

If the mountains were raising slow enough to not stop the river, there should be major faulting in these mountains, as pressure would have built up in hardened rock. From what I can see theses mountains raised the strata vertically, but without faulting-- which is not happening without stopping up the river in my book. The uniformintarian explanation just doesn't hold water :) .

#54 Kaliko

Kaliko

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 September 2010 - 08:33 PM

As an interesting problem with the theory of violent water making the gaps in mountains and carving the grand canyon, why does the grand canyon take such a meandering route? Would it not be more of a straight shot if it was done in less than a year?

#55 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 23 September 2010 - 05:53 PM

As an interesting problem with the theory of violent water making the gaps in mountains and carving the grand canyon, why does the grand canyon take such a meandering route? Would it not be more of a straight shot if it was done in less than a year?

View Post

I'm by no means an expert on the canyon, but if you look at it from the top on a relief map, and realize it is on the edge of an uplift--Colorado Plateau, you can easily imagine it as an initial stress fault, by perhaps a stretching of the crust, and then enlarged by catastrophic water. There are many branching tributaries which branch and stop perpendicular to the canyon. The Colorado River obviously could not have caused these branches. It is much easier to imagine a catastrophic uplift causing a stress crack--earthquake, and the water simply following the route of the canyon, flowing into from these branches. There are various hypotheses among creationists, but quick uplift, followed by drainage into the Pacific Ocean seems to make the most sense.

I do not believe standard tectonics has a viable mechanism to put such pressure so as to cause megatons of rock to bend and uplift. Also, all these mountains that are accounted to standard (slow) tectonics, should be completely faulted. This would take unimaginable continuous pressre. What mechanism is doing this--lava from the oceanic ridges--no way. I don't want to deviate, but I need to do a post on tectonics one day soon.

#56 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 02 October 2010 - 10:40 PM

I'm by no means an expert on the canyon, but if you look at it from the top on a relief map, and realize it is on the edge of an uplift--Colorado Plateau, you can easily imagine it as an initial stress fault, by perhaps a stretching of the crust, and then enlarged by catastrophic water. There are many branching tributaries which branch and stop perpendicular to the canyon. The Colorado River obviously could not have caused these branches. It is much easier to imagine a catastrophic uplift causing a stress crack--earthquake, and the water simply following the route of the canyon, flowing into from these branches. There are various hypotheses among creationists, but quick uplift, followed by drainage into the Pacific Ocean seems to make the most sense.


Now you got me thinking again.LOL

Scientists acknowledge two tectonic active times at the Canyon, during the precambrian and relatively recently. It can be seen in the cross section of the canyon, which according to Rb-Sr dating, the earliest activity is older than the precambrian cardenas basalt by 270 million years.

Posted Image

I've been looking closely at the satellite images of the colorado tributairies for years and the fault fracture theory you suggested makes sense. It would explain why the bottom is folded soon after the flood while it was still wet and soft and then, later, cracking after it solidified during the second tectonic event.

Posted Image

Posted Image



Thanks.

#57 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 06 October 2010 - 07:48 PM

I'm by no means an expert on the canyon, but if you look at it from the top on a relief map, and realize it is on the edge of an uplift--Colorado Plateau, you can easily imagine it as an initial stress fault, by perhaps a stretching of the crust, and then enlarged by catastrophic water. There are many branching tributaries which branch and stop perpendicular to the canyon. The Colorado River obviously could not have caused these branches. It is much easier to imagine a catastrophic uplift causing a stress crack--earthquake, and the water simply following the route of the canyon, flowing into from these branches. There are various hypotheses among creationists, but quick uplift, followed by drainage into the Pacific Ocean seems to make the most sense.


Now you got me thinking again.LOL

Scientists acknowledge two tectonic active times at the Canyon, during the precambrian and relatively recently. It can be seen in the cross section of the canyon, which according to Rb-Sr dating, the earliest activity is older than the precambrian cardenas basalt by 270 million years.

Posted Image

I've been looking closely at the satellite images of the colorado tributairies for years and the fault fracture theory you suggested makes sense. It would explain why the bottom is folded soon after the flood while it was still wet and soft and then, later, cracking after it solidified during the second tectonic event.

Posted Image

Posted Image
Thanks.

View Post

Yeah you know it's a very hard thing for the unis/actuals to explain the side tributaries. There's lots of them. One thing for sure, water flowed through them,a nd they don't go far. Is there another explanation for how so many of them formed, apparantly the same depth--the river couldn't have done it---and that's what is taught--the Phd professors are teaching it!!!

I just scratch my head when I think about our greatest minds giving us this hooey.

#58 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 06 October 2010 - 07:55 PM

As an interesting problem with the theory of violent water making the gaps in mountains and carving the grand canyon, why does the grand canyon take such a meandering route? Would it not be more of a straight shot if it was done in less than a year?

View Post


The canyon is in what appears to be a mountainous raised "scar." How would a river slowly cut right down the center? :lol:

But if it was initially a stress crack caused by the uplift in the scar then the water would naturally follow the crack and enlarge it in the latter stage of the flood.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users