PDA

View Full Version : Incontrovertible evidence of a global flood


vitamin
19th May 2009, 04:35 AM
Of course by "incontrovertible," I mean "easily dismissed."

Sometimes I think that creationists are actively trying to make me giggle.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence

Frankenstyle
19th May 2009, 08:15 AM
I've always gotten a kick out of them invoking deep sea fossils on mountains as evidence of a global flood. Somehow they manage to ignore the fact that for that volume of water to cover the Earth to that depth in the time frame given, the forces would have been equivalent to hydraulic mining.

If the flood is taken literally, the Earth wouldn't have mountains, it'd be more of a polished marble with no significant changes in elevation from one point to the next.

Eh, some people's kids...you just can't take them anywhere, and be proud.

fishbob
19th May 2009, 08:22 AM
More lying for Jesus.

In this case, stupid lying for Jesus.

Damien Evans
19th May 2009, 08:26 AM
Of course by "incontrovertible," I mean "easily dismissed."

Sometimes I think that creationists are actively trying to make me giggle.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence

......


......


Idiots!

ravdin
19th May 2009, 08:53 AM
The flood randomly left marine fossils at the tops of mountains- and at the same time other animals (kangaroos, giraffes, camels, opossums) were correctly redistributed to their proper continents.

Jesus is magic!

temporalillusion
19th May 2009, 09:02 AM
Where's the genetic bottleneck in every species?

aggle-rithm
19th May 2009, 09:32 AM
Wait a minute.

I've heard that the existence of discontinuities in rock strata is a major problem with the "Old Earth Theory".

Now they are pointing at places where there are no discontinuities, and saying that's evidence for a Young Earth as well...?

Mind-boggling.

Dorcas
19th May 2009, 09:34 AM
'By the early 1800s, however, great thicknesses of fossiliferous strata were discovered. It became clear that they could not all have been produced by a single flood, however catastrophic. Furthermore, the duration of the Earth's early prehistoric development could no longer be confined to a duration of a few thousand years
'As an understanding of the slowness of the rates of many geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation developed, the age of the Earth had to be extended into millions, rather than just thousands, of years. What became clear was that during this long history there had been continual burial of organic remains within layers of sediment, and that the types of fossils found varied throughout the different rock strata.'

aggle-rithm
19th May 2009, 09:36 AM
The flood randomly left marine fossils at the tops of mountains- and at the same time other animals (kangaroos, giraffes, camels, opossums) were correctly redistributed to their proper continents.

Jesus is magic!

Yep, pulling all those eukalyptus leaves out of nowhere to feed the koalas for forty days makes the "Feeding of the Multitudes" look like a cheap parlor trick.

Also, the predatory species were very kind to hold off eating for a few years to give the herbivores time to repopulate the Earth.

aggle-rithm
19th May 2009, 09:37 AM
'By the early 1800s, however, great thicknesses of fossiliferous strata were discovered. It became clear that they could not all have been produced by a single flood, however catastrophic. Furthermore, the duration of the Earth's early prehistoric development could no longer be confined to a duration of a few thousand years
'As an understanding of the slowness of the rates of many geological processes such as erosion and sedimentation developed, the age of the Earth had to be extended into millions, rather than just thousands, of years. What became clear was that during this long history there had been continual burial of organic remains within layers of sediment, and that the types of fossils found varied throughout the different rock strata.'

...Satan...? Is that you...? ;)

Psi Baba
19th May 2009, 09:43 AM
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
So . . . the Flood only killed marine animals???

Soapy Sam
19th May 2009, 10:01 AM
Uplift causes tablelands. (eg the Colorado Plateau).

Mountains are caused by erosion.

Once you get your head round this, geography - and some history- look quite different.

steve s
19th May 2009, 02:19 PM
Has anyone been watching the show How The Earth Was Made on the History Channel? They've had a few episodes that explain how uplift from tectonic forces result in fossiles of sea creatures being on mountaintops. They had a recent one on how the Alps were formed. They mentioned one range made of a layer of limestone that was something like 7000 feet thick. They went on to explain how the limestone was gradually built up by the accumulation of trillions of tiny sea creatures. I'd like to see the creationists explain how all that was accomplished in a few thousand years.

Steve S.

Soapy Sam
19th May 2009, 02:28 PM
Goddidit.
Next question?

rjh01
20th May 2009, 01:33 AM
If that is the best they can do I am laughing.

Beerina
21st May 2009, 11:12 AM
Uplift causes tablelands. (eg the Colorado Plateau).

Mountains are caused by erosion.

Once you get your head round this, geography - and some history- look quite different.


Mountains aren't caused by buckling? You need one hell of a collapse to tilt the otherwise still flat, but uplifted strata in a plateau to become angled as on a mountain.

No, I know what you're saying, but I think you're thinking of something else.

Those tall, narrow Wile E. Coyote plateaus are the remains of volcano cores where the surrounding slopes, being mostly ash and wimpy pumice, have long since eroded away, leaving the denser rock core sticking up in the air.


But for a plateau -- a raised area of rock that's still horizontal -- to leave the Rockies would require a plateau of astounding immensity, both in length and in width, to say nothing of height.

I don't think there's any evidence for the 90% bulk of uplifted land to erode away, leaving the rockies (and such that parts underneath eroded away, causing one side to collapse downward, leaving one side of the Rocky range.)