PDA

View Full Version : The evidence for Noah's Flood is overwhelming!



IntelligentDesignWins
12-12-2016, 12:43 PM
M I rite? Probably!:-)

37818
12-12-2016, 02:03 PM
M I rite? Probably!:-)

I had thought so. But if it is to be understood as universal and not globle. Where is it?
The alleged evidence for a globle flood spans geological time of some over 300,000,000 years, it would seem. So where is it?

Raphael
12-12-2016, 02:19 PM
I had thought so. But if it is to be understood as universal and not globle. Where is it?
The alleged evidence for a globle flood spans geological time of some over 300,000,000 years, it would seem. So where is it?

global, not globle.

37818
12-14-2016, 06:12 AM
global, not globle.

Yep.

Meh Gerbil
12-14-2016, 01:04 PM
I had thought so. But if it is to be understood as universal and not globle. Where is it?

This guy is evidence for a globle flood:
20027

Jedidiah
12-14-2016, 06:27 PM
You mean a gobble flood.


This guy is evidence for a globle flood:
20027

mpayne85
12-18-2016, 09:02 PM
One area that there is proof for a global flood lies in the Mojave desert of the United States' Midwest. The sedimentary layers and fossils are the most noticeable. I have personally seen the plaques depicting evidence that it was an ancient sea.

Other proof is the oil fields. All the dinosaurs and other animals were brought together by the rising waters and undercurrents during the flood. Oil fields are these gathering spots where mass graves where the decaying bodies of all these large animals assembled.

Kbertsche
12-18-2016, 10:15 PM
One area that there is proof for a global flood lies in the Mojave desert of the United States' Midwest. The sedimentary layers and fossils are the most noticeable. I have personally seen the plaques depicting evidence that it was an ancient sea.
This is not proof of a global flood. As you say, it is evidence that the Mojave was once an ancient sea. It provides no evidence that this sea was global, or that it was due to a flood.


Other proof is the oil fields. All the dinosaurs and other animals were brought together by the rising waters and undercurrents during the flood. Oil fields are these gathering spots where mass graves where the decaying bodies of all these large animals assembled.
Yes, oil comes from the decay of ancient plants and animals. But why do you think all of the world's oil fields are the same age, or are due to a global flood? Do you have any evidence, either biblical or scientific, which suggests this?

hansgeorg
12-19-2016, 06:28 AM
I had thought so. But if it is to be understood as universal and not globle. Where is it?
The alleged evidence for a globle flood spans geological time of some over 300,000,000 years, it would seem. So where is it?

All of the "periods".

37818
12-19-2016, 06:38 AM
All of the "periods".

So are you saying the 370 or so days in that box [ark] spans the 300,000,000 or so years of time?

hansgeorg
12-19-2016, 07:31 AM
So are you saying the 370 or so days in that box [ark] spans the 300,000,000 or so years of time?

If you think there is some absurdity involved, I think it is on the part of those dating "300,000,000 or so years".

One Bad Pig
12-19-2016, 02:49 PM
Rouge has requested, and been granted, permission to post in this thread. If he misbehaves, mossy will PinTM him.

rogue06
12-19-2016, 02:54 PM
Rouge has requested, and been granted, permission to post in this thread. If he misbehaves, mossy will PinTM him.
"rouge"? Et tu piggy? Et tu.

37818
12-20-2016, 01:58 PM
If you think there is some absurdity involved, I think it is on the part of those dating "300,000,000 or so years".

I did not say an absurdity - you did to my question. So what flood evidence do you mean?
11856

11855

rogue06
12-20-2016, 02:29 PM
One area that there is proof for a global flood lies in the Mojave desert of the United States' Midwest. The sedimentary layers and fossils are the most noticeable. I have personally seen the plaques depicting evidence that it was an ancient sea.
Welcome to Tweb m85 :hi:.

The fact that an area was at one time underwater does not mean that the entire globe was submerged a few thousand years ago. What you need to do is show a single layer that stretch across the entire planet was underwater. That is something that nobody can do and not for a want of trying. In fact, it was the early geologists (late 18th and early 19th century), many of who were members of the clergy, who went out looking for evidence of a global flood (and quite confident that they would find it) who first discovered that not only was there no evidence for such a recent catastrophe but instead all of the evidence was pointing against it. This has not changed since that time.

Just one of the many issues is the fact that the layers that are often identified as "flood layers" contain things that cannot be the result of a flood. Things like deserts, paleosols, evaporites, forests stacked one atop another and even limestone or chalk layers (the latter of which while formed underwater cannot happen during a flood). Things like this are found all over the world at every geologic layer.


Other proof is the oil fields. All the dinosaurs and other animals were brought together by the rising waters and undercurrents during the flood. Oil fields are these gathering spots where mass graves where the decaying bodies of all these large animals assembled.
Ouch. Actually, it is a long discredited myth that oil fields are the result of decaying dinosaur remains. In short, petroleum was formed from the remains of microscopic plants and animals (primarily the plants) that lived in the oceans millions of years ago that got buried and were acted upon by bacteria while under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat. No dinosaurs or other terrestrial animals were involved in the making in spite of what some oil companies implied in the advertising years ago (which wasn't really intended to be taken seriously)


20160

hansgeorg
12-21-2016, 07:15 AM
I did not say an absurdity - you did to my question. So what flood evidence do you mean?
11856

11855

I mean nearly the entire part which is sedimentary rock or where metamorphic rock shows traces of sediments of aquatic nature with marine fossils, while being on land.

I mean the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, anywhere you get fossils. I mean Permian before Triassic as well as Palaeocene after Cretaceous.

Permian and Triassic in Karoo? Flood in Karoo. Jurassic in Bristol? Flood in Bristol. Palaeocene in Linz? Flood in Linz. And so on. I consider all of these as evidence of the Flood. And since you get things like that all over the world, I consider it was global.

hansgeorg
12-21-2016, 07:17 AM
What you need to do is show a single layer that stretch across the entire planet was underwater. That is something that nobody can do and not for a want of trying.

Unless the fossil finds like from "Permian" or "Palaeocene" or "Mesozoic" or "Precambrian" are in fact a single layer of bioosphere, where even land vertebrates fossilise due to lots of water bringing on lots of mud.

hansgeorg
12-21-2016, 07:18 AM
Things like deserts, paleosols, evaporites, forests stacked one atop another and even limestone or chalk layers (the latter of which while formed underwater cannot happen during a flood).

Limestone can be from shrimps getting caught in acid during flood.

hansgeorg
12-21-2016, 07:22 AM
Ouch. Actually, it is a long discredited myth that oil fields are the result of decaying dinosaur remains. In short, petroleum was formed from the remains of microscopic plants and animals (primarily the plants) that lived in the oceans millions of years ago that got buried and were acted upon by bacteria while under tremendous amounts of pressure and heat. No dinosaurs or other terrestrial animals were involved in the making in spite of what some oil companies implied in the advertising years ago (which wasn't really intended to be taken seriously)

Apart from "millions of years ago", this is interesting. Flood with lots of mud layers provides the pressure. Some places also the heat.

In fact, if acid burns shrimps to limestone, the heat from that reaction may have helped forming the petrol.

Now, the petrol coming from microscopic plants and animals is very interesting, meaning that if so, no human remains were involved in producing petrol. While using plastic objects I am on and off wondering whether I should give the poor nephelim a decent burial, but on your view that might not be necessary?

rogue06
12-21-2016, 10:32 AM
Unless the fossil finds like from "Permian" or "Palaeocene" or "Mesozoic" or "Precambrian" are in fact a single layer of bioosphere, where even land vertebrates fossilise due to lots of water bringing on lots of mud.
We have a lot of fossils that formed that cannot be the result of a flood. Just sticking with those that include dinosaurs for the sake of brevity and simplicity we can start with those that are the result of a collapsing sand dune.

The famous fossil of a Velociraptor locked in combat with a Protoceratops discovered in the southern Gobi Desert in 1971 is just such an example (although there is a small chance a sand storm was responsible -- either way a global flood was hardly responsible).


20199



And that's hardly the only Protoceratops that had been discovered that had been buried alive in aeolian (wind deposited) sediments and not drowned. Due to its orientation this guy was buried (again probably under a collapsing sand dune or something similar and not something that drowned) and was trying to dig its way out when it died.


20200 20201



Aside from Protoceratops, several examples of another early certopsian dinosaur that lived in Asia, Psittacosaurus, has also been found that have either been buried in massive sandstorms or under collapsing sand dunes.

And like the aforementioned Velociraptor and Protoceratops there is also yet another ceratopsian, this time the iconic Triceratops, that has been found in sandstone in Montana with a Nanotyrannus (a small tyrannosaurid relative of the T rex). In this case it appears that they killed each other and the corpses had been picked over by scavengers before being buried under sand. What exactly took place is still unknown since, at least the last time I heard, the discoverer is selling the fossils still encased in their plaster field jackets on the open market at Bonham’s auction house in New York without them being properly scientifically examined. The only thing known for certain was that they had been buried in dry sand.


20202



ETA: Another non-ceratopsian dinosaur, this time a relatively small sauropod known as Seitaad was found a couple years ago in Utah and had also been entombed by the collapse of a sand dune.

And that is just dinosaur fossils resulting from collapsing sand dunes or sandstorms.

Now let's turn to another major source for dinosaur fossils that have absolutely nothing to do with flooding. In fact in this cases it is the exact opposite -- the result of severe drought.

How do advocates of a global flood explain why a substantial number of the bonebeds that have been uncovered are the result of drought -- local water sources drying up -- in layers that they identify as being laid down during a global deluge? I had a thread listing a couple dozen such sites that contained the remains of dinosaurs (there are others containing creatures that lived at times when they weren't around) including the world famous Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry (http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/content/20/4/363.full) (CLDQ)[1] but it was lost during the great crash of 2013 :frown:

Other sites include the Mother's Day Quarry, Canyon Bone Bed, Dino Ridge Quarry and Westside Quarry all in Montana, Ghost Ranch in New Mexico, Dry Mesa Dinosaur Quarry in western Colorado, Douglas Quarry in Dinosaur National Monument, a quarry just west of Arches National Park in southeast Utah, the Patagonia, Argentina site where the remains of Titanosaur were discovered and a couple in northern Madagascar (http://sites.uom.ac.mu/uom/images/Events/2015/dinosaur/AncientKiller.pdf). And here is a thread I started in 2014 describing a bonebed full of pterosaur remains in Brazil (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?3180-Remains-of-large-group-of-unusual-quot-butterfly-headed-quot-pterosaur-found-in-Brazil&p=89336&viewfull=1#post89336) that was the result of either drought or possibly a sandstorm.

Next, what about those creatures that have fallen into death traps ranging from sink holes to tar pits and died? We find numerous such examples all over the world. A half a dozen Utahraptors were found in what once was quicksand in eastern Utah just north of Arches National Park last year and several Arrhinoceratops were found at the bottom of what is likely an ancient sinkhole north of Drumheller in Alberta are just two examples. Another is the still active Adams Hill Tar Pit (a.k.a. Fort Sill Tar Pit) in southwestern Oklahoma that has been trapping creatures (and people) for roughly 250 million years now.

Finally, some of the most famous sites, like many of those found in northeastern China (for instance, the Cretaceous Yixian and Jiufotang formations that comprise the Jehol Biota), are the result of creatures being buried in volcanic ash and debris much like the humans living in Pompeii and ‎Herculaneum were in 79 AD. Below are images of a Psittacosaurus and a Mei long (a duck-sized troodontid dinosaur), the latter is preserved curled up in a bird-like sleeping position, indicating that it was killed by poisonous volcanic gases before being buried


20207 20208



If these took place during a flood they would have mixed with the water and not left distinctive layers that we see.

And please note I was only referring to dinosaurs in these examples. I could give many, many more examples involving other creatures but hopefully these should suffice to illustrate my point.








1. See here for an account (written a few years before the paper cited) in the popular media: Utah Dinos May Have Been Killed by Drought (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1220_021220_droughtdino.html)

rogue06
12-21-2016, 10:42 AM
Limestone can be from shrimps getting caught in acid during flood.
20209

Especially limestone layers hundreds to thousands of feet thick that stretch for hundreds of miles and longer.

hansgeorg
12-22-2016, 08:13 AM
We have a lot of fossils that formed that cannot be the result of a flood. Just sticking with those that include dinosaurs for the sake of brevity and simplicity we can start with those that are the result of a collapsing sand dune.

Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?


20209

Especially limestone layers hundreds to thousands of feet thick that stretch for hundreds of miles and longer.

I thought actually that when limestone layers are "thousands of feet thick", that is not limestone layers only, but sandstone in between, as I was looking at diagrams over North Dakota.

But supposing one were so thick, well, very MUCH shellfish got mixed up there, in all those currents.

rogue06
12-22-2016, 03:42 PM
Wait a second, but isn't sand among the deposits which a Flood can be counted on as getting along?
Look up the word aeolian.


I thought actually that when limestone layers are "thousands of feet thick", that is not limestone layers only, but sandstone in between, as I was looking at diagrams over North Dakota.
In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.

Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.

And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?

In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.

Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.

Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.

hansgeorg
12-23-2016, 01:26 AM
Look up the word aeolian.

I know it means wind(-borne). That means scientists guess the sand came by wind.


In some cases but look at the White Cliffs of Dover which rise over 300' above sea level IIRC their total thickness is something like 1300.' Note that chalk is a form of limestone. A very pure form. Now the White Cliffs are a tiny part of a chalk formation that stretches to the west across the British Isles to Northern Ireland. And in the east, across the English Channel goes from the coast of France across southern Scandinavia, Poland and into southern Russia (where it gets as thick as 1000 meters or 3280'), where it is eventually stops at the Ural Mountains.

Has it been verified as extant in everyone of these places?

Or has it been verified as in some places absent "since the Cretaceous layer eroded after the time"?


Since Noah's Flood is supposed to have killed everything that was alive at the time and this chalk formation is supposed to have been laid down during the flood (it is a Cretaceous layer), this means there had to be enough coccoliths (the microscopic animal from whose shells the chalk is made of) alive at the time of the flood to have covered the entire planet to a depth of approximately 83 cm (a bit more than 32½" or 2'8½"). That's nearly 2¾' of just coccoliths covering every square inch of the planet. Now if it took approximately 10 million years to form as geologists estimate this poses no problem but it sure does if you contend it formed in less than a year.

The coccoliths would certainly have been formed, both those dying into chalk and those surviving (if any) to live in our day, during the 2242 years between Creation and Flood.

83 cm world wide sounds much, but if on one hand Earth was c. 1/2 land, 1/2 sea, this means 1 m 66 seawide. And even if seas were not so deep back then , coccoliths 1 m 66 in compressed thickness could easily have been accomodated in seas much deeper than that even if much less deep than after Flood.


And to be clear this is far from the only massive chalk formation in the world. There is also the Austin Chalk which underlies Dallas, Texas and averages 160 km (99½ miles) wide is roughly 120 meters (393') thick, and stretches from Mexico (where it is known as the San Felipe Formation) along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and into Louisiana -- a distance in excess of 800 km (497 miles). It contains enough coccoliths to cover the entire earth another 3 cm (1.1").

And when you add all the other massive chalk formations found throughout the world, if deposited at one time during a single flood, as YEC global flood advocates claim, it would require enough coccoliths to have covered the earth to a depth in excess of one meter (over 39"). When they were alive, what could they all have possibly eaten?

Plancton of algae?


In fact that last question is rhetorical since it is impossible for that many of the necessary organisms to have existed. They would be packed so tightly and deeply that only only the top millimeter or so would receive any sunlight which is a problem since coccoliths require sunlight to exist. This means that only a tiny fraction of them could have ever lived under such circumstances.

A marine depth of 1 m 69 when compressed can have been decompressed to sufficiently spare for all of it to get sunlight.


Another problem with the idea of chalk layers being formed by a single flood is that flood geology doesn’t allow for the calm waters required for chalk deposits to form. The same rapid currents that are supposedly carving canyons all across the planet would disperse any collection of calcium carbonate, scattering their remains worldwide. Instead of the specific locations it is found in you would get NO chalk beds anywhere on the planet. Stokes Law demonstrates that a particle 150 microns across or less (chalk is made up of tiny coccolith shells that vary in size from 1 to 12 microns) would only sink to the bottom when water velocity is less than 0.053 kph or 0.033 mph, therefore the particles would never fall out of the ocean currents and dissolve as they were carried along.

I am not talking, then, I suppose (check other Flood geologists who have studied geology professionally!) of coccoliths forming calcium carbonate, calcium carbonate dissolving in water and only after that finally settling.

I am, I suppose, talking of decompressed coccoliths being compressed and forming calcium carbonate in a compressed state which settles independently of Stokes law. On the same site as where it was formed.


Moreover, it takes a long time for these microscopic particles to settle even in calm waters. According to Stokes Law a 4 micron object (the size of the average coccolith) falls through the water at a speed of 0.00087cm/second. Now, along the southern Louisiana coastline there are around 22,860 meters (75,000’) of sedimentary deposits with a chalk layer buried approximately 6096 meters (20,000') down.

If a year long global flood was responsible for this, then how can it be explained that a pure layer of chalk, with each piece of it taking 125 days to settle, formed in the middle of other sediments, which were pouring down at a rate of nearly 205’/day (to account for 75,000’ in 1 year)? IOW, if chalk were deposited in a flood it would not be +90% pure coccolith as it is, but instead there would be a mixture of sand and shale in it.

The mixture problem has been accounted for by currents doing the deposition, with instantaneous sorting. Shale, sand, coccoliths, they all have specific shapes, sizes and "specific weight" and so sort spontaneously into diverse layers when depositing from a strong current of sediment saturated water.

As to the burial of the layer, that is part of the post-Flood restructuring of the world and part of how deep seas were taking care of the water from the Flood, so land could rise.

rogue06
12-23-2016, 12:45 PM
20260

There is only so much you can do for the willfully ignorant :no:

hansgeorg
12-26-2016, 03:51 AM
20260

There is only so much you can do for the willfully ignorant :no:

I take it you have no arguments to reply with?

rogue06
12-26-2016, 01:47 PM
I take it you have no arguments to reply with?
You didn't say anything worth replying to.

hansgeorg
12-27-2016, 05:20 AM
You didn't say anything worth replying to.

I've heard that one before. From people having no arguments ...

IntelligentDesignWins
01-04-2017, 03:32 PM
rogue06 has nothing to say.

37818
05-16-2017, 07:02 PM
The earth's geology is in evidence. What part of it proves the Biblical flood?