Jump to content


Photo

English Channel Carved By Catastrophic Water


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

#1 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 20 February 2011 - 06:08 AM

According to ScienceDaily, scientists believe the English Channel was carved by a tsunami.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-12244964


Posted Image

At Montrose, on the north-east coast of Scotland, Smith has uncovered signs of this long-ago natural disaster. A layer of ancient sand runs through what should be banks of continuous clay - sand washed inland by the inundation....

"The waves would have been maybe as much as 10m (33ft) high," says geologist David Smith, of Oxford University. "Anyone standing out on the mud flats at that time would have been dismembered. The speed [of the water] was just so great...."

Grooved timbers preserved by the saltwater are thought to be the remains of 8,000-year-old log boats, and point to the site once being a sizable boat-building yard, says Garry Momber, of the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (see video clip below)....


Answers in Genesis writes...."If secular scientists can believe that the overflow of a relatively small ancient sea (smaller than the North Sea) could carve out the English Channel and expand the North Sea to its present size, is it really such a stretch to believe that water covering the entire world—bursting forth from below and raining down from above—would not completely rework the earth’s surface? As the waters came, they would have rapidly deposited layers of sediment—including life-forms caught off-guard; as the waters receded, they would have carved channels and reshaped much of the sediment. Together with catastrophic tectonic forces, the Flood of Noah’s day was responsible for more changes in the Earth’s natural environment than any event since creation. And secular scientists give tacit credibility to the Flood model whenever they use catastrophic processes to explain geological formations."

Anybody got two cents?

#2 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 20 February 2011 - 06:32 AM

Anybody got two cents?

View Post


Maybe one cent. Yet another catastrophic event, yet we'll continue to hear that "there is no evidence for a global flood".

True story. A guy who invented a geography board game said what inspired him was when he was in England and asked a public school class where the English Channel was. Most looked dumbfounded, until one kid raised his hand and answered "I don't know, I don't get cable".

Fred

#3 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 February 2011 - 05:10 AM

According to ScienceDaily, scientists believe the English Channel was carved by a tsunami.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-12244964
Posted Image 
Answers in Genesis writes...."If secular scientists can believe that the overflow of a relatively small ancient sea (smaller than the North Sea) could carve out the English Channel and expand the North Sea to its present size, is it really such a stretch to believe that water covering the entire world—bursting forth from below and raining down from above—would not completely rework the earth’s surface? As the waters came, they would have rapidly deposited layers of sediment—including life-forms caught off-guard; as the waters receded, they would have carved channels and reshaped much of the sediment. Together with catastrophic tectonic forces, the Flood of Noah’s day was responsible for more changes in the Earth’s natural environment than any event since creation. And secular scientists give tacit credibility to the Flood model whenever they use catastrophic processes to explain geological formations."

Anybody got two cents?

View Post


Where the enormous stretch in the AIG discussion comes is that there ever was water bursting forth from below and raining down from above in anything like a worldwide scale, when evidence of this is lacking.

I think this AIG comment was probably in reference to the story I read about the formation of the English Channel some years ago.

Scientists tell the journal Nature that the torrent probably came from a giant lake in what is now the North Sea.

Some event - perhaps an earthquake - caused the lake's rim to breach at the Dover Strait, they believe.

Dr Sanjeev Gupta, from Imperial College London, and colleagues say the discharge would have been one of the most significant megafloods in recent Earth history, and provides an explanation for Britain's island status.


Ice Dam

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 February 2011 - 09:56 AM

Where the enormous stretch in the AIG discussion comes is that there ever was water bursting forth from below and raining down from above in anything like a worldwide scale, when evidence of this is lacking.


In the cross section below, it certainly appears that the entire base of the planet was busted up, then all of the remaining layers neatly arranged themselves just like a flood would do.

Posted Image



Enjoy.

#5 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 February 2011 - 08:12 PM

Where the enormous stretch in the AIG discussion comes is that there ever was water bursting forth from below and raining down from above in anything like a worldwide scale, when evidence of this is lacking.

View Post

Do you think that saturated mudslides and outburst floods would not have occurred in the deluge. It is one peice of evidence at a time it to build a case. If I am trying to prove a murder and each peice of evidence the judge says is inadmissable, then there will never be a case. That is what you do each time something is presented.

The fact remains, like Fred said. More evidence of catastrophic and rapid geologic formation.

#6 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 February 2011 - 08:21 PM

Where the enormous stretch in the AIG discussion comes is that there ever was water bursting forth from below and raining down from above in anything like a worldwide scale, when evidence of this is lacking.


In the cross section below, it certainly appears that the entire base of the planet was busted up, then all of the remaining layers neatly arranged themselves just like a flood would do.

Posted Image
Enjoy.

View Post

I'm borrowing from another thread. But since we never have evidence :). See the eroded topography. The erosion goes deep through the strata to form the canyon. Why is the current topography the only one that follows this path? All the layers underneath are straight. No erosion. If we use the erosion of the current topography as an example, you would think we would see signs of old topographies.

Even if you say the earth tends to erode things flat, look at the canyon. It would have to fill in to be flat, and you would see evidence of it in future generations. The fact is this is NON-evidence for unifromintarians. The canyon layers did not form slowly, because they did not weather.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:35 PM

I'm borrowing from another thread. But since we never have evidence  :rolleyes: . See the eroded topography. The erosion goes deep through the strata to form the canyon. Why is the current topography the only one that follows this path? All the layers underneath are straight. No erosion. If we use the erosion of the current topography as an example, you would think we would see signs of old topographies.


Being "evidence based" is critical when testing theories. Too bad Lyell and his followers never did or will. Topographies, as you said, certainly makes catastrophe an undeniable fact when examining the geologic column.




Thanks.

#8 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 26 March 2011 - 04:41 AM

I'm borrowing from another thread. But since we never have evidence  :( . See the eroded topography. The erosion goes deep through the strata to form the canyon. Why is the current topography the only one that follows this path? All the layers underneath are straight. No erosion. If we use the erosion of the current topography as an example, you would think we would see signs of old topographies.


Being "evidence based" is critical when testing theories. Too bad Lyell and his followers never did or will. Topographies, as you said, certainly makes catastrophe an undeniable fact when examining the geologic column.
Thanks.

View Post

Yeah, Jason. I just watched one of those survivor shows the other day. They actually climbed down (fell) a large hill with cliffs for hours. It was covered in cobbles and small boulders. Didn't seem to be a morrain to me as I did not seem a large valley (but my view was limited). It was a really large hill. How did all those rocks get all over it. If the hill "eroded" then the "geological column" should have been been changing. But it was rocks from top to bottom!

#9 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 March 2011 - 06:55 AM

Do you think that saturated mudslides and outburst floods would not have occurred in the deluge?  It is one piece of evidence at a time it to build a case.  If I am trying to prove a murder and each peice of evidence the judge says is inadmissable, then there will never be a case.  That is what you do each time something is presented.

The fact remains, like Fred said.  More evidence of catastrophic and rapid geologic formation.

View Post

The question that remains open would be whether this did happen within the same narrow fram work of time or whether these are different, unrelated events.

#10 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 March 2011 - 10:56 AM

The question that remains open would be whether this did happen within the same narrow fram work of time or whether these are different, unrelated events.

View Post

We haven't seen anything as large as the channel carved by water in recorded secular history. Even the recent power revealed by Japan's tsunami was not even close to carving a channel that big. It would take an immense water catastrophe, much larger than Japan's tsunami!!

I find it ironic that as much pride as evos take in the "predictions" of evolution, that no one can see the prediction of what Noah's flood would do. And WHY did it take them that long to SEE this? What else have they not SEEN??????

#11 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 March 2011 - 12:27 PM

We haven't seen anything as large as the channel carved by water in recorded secular history.  Even the recent power revealed by Japan's tsunami was not even close to carving a channel that big. It would take an immense water catastrophe, much larger than Japan's tsunami!!

Aren't they supposed to argue that this all has been formed by "gradual change" (uniformitarianism) anyway?! But I fully agree with you, some geological features can only be explained with an immense application of force by water and mud that even moved large rocks. And I assume any reasonable person will actually accept that, too. Just that such events have taken place on several places in the world under different geological settings (different location, different materials involved, different effects). One would now have to go and prove that a larger number of these events did actually take place in a closer time frame (from a Creationist perspective this would be Noah's flood and some follow events on this).


I find it ironic that as much pride as evos take in the "predictions" of evolution, that no one can see the prediction of what Noah's flood would do.  And WHY did it take them that long to SEE this?  What else  have they not SEEN??????

View Post

Their "prediction" and the validity of the arguments connected to this are a A subject of its own, I guess.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users