Evidence for God from Science

gritty wrote: If you recall the Biblical account of "Noah's" Flood, God used only pre-existing water. So the water is still here on Earth. Before the Flood, the Earth was mostly earth, and the water was under the surface, as a continual watering source. And there was a canopy of a form of water (no one knows if it was liquid, gas, or solid). Now that the canopy is broken, the water from it is in clouds, and rose the level of surface water.

According to theory, when the fountains of the great deep (water under the surface) was ruptured (probably caused from whatever it was that broke the canopy) the force of the water threw back the earth. This caused the mantle of the Earth to break-up, and pads of earth floated and tipped and slid and crushed against eachother.

They continued to do this till the water finished rushing out. At which point they came to rest in their present locations. Some of the pads stayed wrinkled, causing mountains. Some of the pads stayed tilted, causing rock layers going the "wrong" way. Some of the pads stayed slid away from the others, causing North and South America, the North and South poles, Australia, and other Islands.

In-between the pads are now seas, oceans, and lakes. Some of the pads are together without water in-between them, causing fault-lines. Earthquakes are usually caused by the pads no being completely settled. They still move a little. Remember that the Earth is smoother than a cue ball; the mountains are not as high as they seem, nor are the valleys so very low.

Mountains appear older and younger by improper [gu]estimation. If this were not true they could tell us to the year how old the Earth REALLY is, but they cannot. I will continue to trust the Bible, for an accounting of Earth, until such a time as God removes it's need.
Romans 3:4

Its far more than improper guestimation. I can go into detail if you would like, I was only trying to show simple points which one can easily understand without go to much indepth on the analysis.

Also the story you told above is completely out of nowhere. Is this account in the Bible? What is the source of this information, and what is the evidence supporting this?

As I recall God created the oceans before he created the land. And now you claim that the water was below the land?

Explain why sedimentaion from the appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.

Also wouldn't the Pacific and Atlantic have the same amount of sedimentation along the sea floor?

Why are the Great Lakes relatively devoid of sedimentation compared to the Caspian Sea?

What of the Medditerranean? Why is the salinity higher if the entire surface was once covered in water? The salinities should be much closer to each other, no? If not than explain the rate of change over the proposed timeframe, and see if it concurs with annual measurements of change.

Bgood wrote:Also the story you told above is completely out of nowhere. Is this account in the Bible? What is the source of this information, and what is the evidence supporting this?

Some of it is from the bible, other is speculation. I am using a noted geologist as my source. I emailed him, asking for his web address, and when he replies I will tell it to you.

As I recall God created the oceans before he created the land. And now you claim that the water was below the land?

God did create seas before the flood. He created waters before land, and seas with the land. However, the earth and the waters were gathered all into their place(s). And water was below the surface of the earth watering the whole earth. Genesis 1:9-10 and Genesis 2:4

2:4
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
1:9-10
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good

Explain why sedimentaion from the Appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.

Why is the dust in my living room thicker on the east side than on the west? It just so happened that different things settled on the Appalachians, than on say the Rockies. Weather patterns are different, at the opposing ranges, causing different regression. The pads are more (or less) stable in one region, as opposed to the other, causing increased (or decreased) settling. Things will settle, decompose, and erode at different rates.

Also wouldn't the Pacific and Atlantic have the same amount of sedimentation along the sea floor?
Why are the Great Lakes relatively devoid of sedimentation compared to the Caspian Sea?

No. There are a number of things that will effect these amounts. Plant life, aquatic life, volcanic activity, depth, erosion, Etc all become factors in sediment levels. Also, with the flood waters swirling, racing, and dancing about the sediments will gather, separate, spread, and whatever; there is no set amount to fall in every given area.

What of the Medditerranean? Why is the salinity higher if the entire surface was once covered in water? The salinities should be much closer to each other, no? If not than explain the rate of change over the proposed timeframe, and see if it concurs with annual measurements of change.

The water was not always salty. If you check, the oceans are becoming saltier, and at different rates. The salt washes off of land, because of the rain, and evaporation removes the water from the ocean leaving the salt behind. The lands are more (and less) salty than other lands, and rain is more (and less) intense, and it rains more (and less) often, causing that different levels of salt to wash into the oceans and seas in different areas.

I hope this answers your questions.

gritty

gritty wrote:God did create seas before the flood. He created waters before land, and seas with the land. However, the earth and the waters were gathered all into their place(s). And water was below the surface of the earth watering the whole earth. Genesis 1:9-10 and Genesis 2:4

2:4
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
1:9-10
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good

So the seas were there before the flood and after the flood only much larger afterwards? All this is speculation.

gritty wrote:Why is the dust in my living room thicker on the east side than on the west? It just so happened that different things settled on the Appalachians, than on say the Rockies. Weather patterns are different, at the opposing ranges, causing different regression. The pads are more (or less) stable in one region, as opposed to the other, causing increased (or decreased) settling. Things will settle, decompose, and erode at different rates.

That is ok for you? You don't want to discover the mechanics whch caused the differing amount of erosion? You are ok with saying that rates are different and that is the reason its different? This is again speculation, and you are doing this so that the evidence fits your theory. I am not speaking of sedimentation on the mountains as much as the sedimentation originating from the mountains. There are measurements of total sedimentation. There are also measurements of erosion rates, chemical makeup, stratification and rock type. Why not have the theory fit the evidence?

gritty wrote:

Also wouldn't the Pacific and Atlantic have the same amount of sedimentation along the sea floor?
Why are the Great Lakes relatively devoid of sedimentation compared to the Caspian Sea?

No. There are a number of things that will effect these amounts. Plant life, aquatic life, volcanic activity, depth, erosion, Etc all become factors in sediment levels. Also, with the flood waters swirling, racing, and dancing about the sediments will gather, separate, spread, and whatever; there is no set amount to fall in every given area.[/quote]You are certain of this? Are you saying that the discrepancy is due to those factors above? Absolutely certain? So the fact that new Seafloor is being created every year in the Atlantic has nothing to do with it?

gritty wrote:The water was not always salty. If you check, the oceans are becoming saltier, and at different rates. The salt washes off of land, because of the rain, and evaporation removes the water from the ocean leaving the salt behind. The lands are more (and less) salty than other lands, and rain is more (and less) intense, and it rains more (and less) often, causing that different levels of salt to wash into the oceans and seas in different areas.

How do you know? Were you there when the water was less salty? Wouldn't all the salt have been washed from the land in the great flood? Is any of this a conclusion based on extrapolation or is it again speculation?

Bgood wrote
Wind rain and other forms of erosion cause the rocks to degrade and become sediment which may eventually find its way to the botom of a lake or perhaps a river delta.

The eons of eons that it would take to create the quantity of sediment that is evident in a lake bottom or delta, and the eons of eons that it would take to refill them after some cataclysmic uplift that turned all the lake bottoms and Deltas into mountains is conjecture; and somewhat amusing. I already explained by creation theory what kind of a cataclysmic event would have or could have caused river deltas and lake bottoms, according to your words, I would just say low areas, because that is what those things are, to become uplifted carrying their loads of sediment with them.

But you often respond with dismissal and attack instead of engagement and co-operation to further the hypotheses to see if they do predict and do explain. All the while failing to offer a better explanation of how evolution caused massive loads of sediment to be on mountains uplifting low areas, and apparently or obviously creating some other low area that became the new low areas, to include new lakes and deltas. I tried to explain how a complex body like earth existing in an equilibrium between uplift forces of expansion and gravity forces and weight of crust could lose its equilibrium. This flood caused the splitting into plates as is apparent and theorized, caused some areas to be pushed up into mountain ranges, and other areas to sink that are now deltas, lakes, and oceans.

You fail to respond to the geological column flipping that would happen when the major eroding mechanism, water, trenched down into canyons and created all the sediment from progressively older/lower strata that are visible in those canyons, and deposited it on top of the sediment that was already in the lakes and deltas before they uplifted, by some unknown evolutionary force.
__
Bgood wrote
If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Floating that reminds me of water. It has been theorized that much of the flood waters that apparently flowed causing the uplift, unless you continue to believe an unknown evolutionary force, were suspended between, or within dry land. Many volcanic and geyser eruptions are made up of a large quantity of water, so this theory has some plausibility to it
__

Jbuza wrote:
Of course. This is not surprising. Neither theory would expect sedimentation to be completely uniform. But sedimentation is extremely wide spread and in places where gravity wouldn't put it, and that supports global sedementation.

Bgood wrote
You then fail to understand mountain formation. You can't say you understand tectonic theory and then continue to insist that "sedimentation is extremely wide spread and in places where gravity wouldn't put it". The process can put sedimentary formations where gravity won't put it. Refer to the recent quakes in the Kashmir region.

75% of the crust of earth has sedimentary rock in it, and sedimentary rock exists where gravity wouldn't put it. Those are two true things, what's the problem? Yes there are uplift forces, uplift forces are not gravity, they as I have theorized are caused by gravity; the extra weight of water that had, by creation theory, existed throughout the crust in equilibrium caused uplift. When it pooled in areas it added to the weight of the crust and caused uplift pressure at those locations that did not have this extra weight
__
Jbuza wrote:
I don't exactly know, wasn't there, don't have all the answers. I would hypothesize however that when the water began to recede that areas began to have no water pressure on them and other areas still had water pressure. This difference is what throws things out of stasis, and is perhaps what fractured the crust into the plates. It seems reasonable that those areas that had more weight from water would descend and those areas that did not have this additional weight would ascend, and of course as this process started the disequilibrium would increase as water ran into ever lowering areas and ran from ever raising areas. As I pointed out before and as evidence supports this process continues to this day. There continues to be uplift and sinking.

Bgood wrote
The evidence does not support this, this is pure speculation. If this were the case then why wouldn't the oceans continue to sink? And why does new crust form at ocean ridges?

Yes, you will find from the first 11 words of what you quoted that this was speculation, but your dismissal by arbitrarily saying the evidence doesn't support this wasn't helpful or interested in furthering knowledge. I realize that you have been indoctrinated to think that man has all the answers, but it certainly isn't convincing for you just to claim that you have the knowledge that oceans no longer sink. thanks. There continues to be uplift, and volcanism, so I would theorize from these observations that creation theory would explain this by a corresponding sinking in the oceans. This interplay is what creates the pressure. IT is reasonable and logical to theorize that this process would slow down and even stop, as equilibrium was reached. There may be human records or evidence to suggest that volcanism was more rampant in earth's past than it has now. I will address your question about activity at ocean ridges. Plate tectonics. The release of the waters onto the face of the earth and their movement across it shattered the crust into these plates. Evolution has no explanation for why we see plate tectonics.
__
Bgood wrote
I have not even been trying to discount the great flood, only what you beleive to be proof of it. Please do more research on the matter. So much of what you have posted in this thread has been ill-informed I cannot respond to it all. This is not meant as an attack, please take no offense. There is plenty of evidence and observation for you to look through so that you can make more educated deductions. I only hope you take some time to educate yourself.

Again dismissal with a bit of intellectual superiority built in. Clearly you have been a good product of the world, because you believe that educated people come to realize that evolution is true. I will just leave the rest of this garbage where it is and only add that you continue to ignore the questions within this thread that I ask of evolution, and simply attack and counter. Which leads nowhere.
__
Bgood wrote
So sedimentary rock which originated at the ocean floor then becomes lifted into mountain chains.

This is speculation. While tectonic uplift is apparent, there is no way of knowing that an oceanic ridge has built into the large dry land mountain ranges.
__
Bgood wrote

Sedimentation is not uniform throughout the world, this would support regional sedimentation . . . .
Erosion increases the loose material on and down stream of the mountain. The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes for example. . . .Explain why sedimentaion from the appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.


So are you saying that you support a global flood? If you can tell that both mountain ranges are a different age based upon the fact that they have different amounts of “loose material on and down stream of the mountain”, and . “The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes”, than you must be supposing they have been subject to the exact same environment. This is speculation and is more of you grabbing at straws to dismiss and attack to try and disprove the theory that explains these questions, so that you don't have to accept God. There is no reason to assume from evolution or creation that mountians would, weather, build, or deteriorate at the same rates. Even a global flood would deposit things regionally, and have varying current forces.
__
Bgood wrote

Explain why sedimentaion from the appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.
Also wouldn't the Pacific and Atlantic have the same amount of sedimentation along the sea floor?
Why are the Great Lakes relatively devoid of sedimentation compared to the Caspian Sea?
What of the Medditerranean? Why is the salinity higher if the entire surface was once covered in water? The salinities should be much closer to each other, no? If not than explain the rate of change over the proposed timeframe, and see if it concurs with annual measurements of change.


I don't understand this, what is this you will take both sides of an issue to dismiss and attack, I thought evolution was the theory that preaches uniformitarianism. This is annoying, you have no desire to investigae and further knowledge, you just dismiss and attack. The evidence that you keep listing is the same evidence that creation theory has grown out of, you keep rattling things off without offering any evolutionary explanation of them. I don't think I will bother to explain these things , you won't be interested in discussing them, you will only dismiss and attack my creation theory explanation of them.
__
gritty wrote

They continued to do this till the water finished rushing out. At which point they came to rest in their present locations. Some of the pads stayed wrinkled, causing mountains. Some of the pads stayed tilted, causing rock layers going the "wrong" way. Some of the pads stayed slid away from the others, causing North and South America, the North and South poles, Australia, and other Islands.

So your hypothesis within creation theory is that every place in between the plates, those cracks, is where the water was forced out? That seems plausible. I don't think they rested after the water stopped coming to the degree this suggests. I think the current activity wihtin the global ocean fo rthat time when it was covered with water could have shaped the new face of the earth a great deal. As I have speculated elsewhere I think that as things began to recede that the weight differential between dry land and new ocean bottoms caused a great upheaval. I think the earth was many many years regaining equilibrium, and may still be being impacted.

I would like also to point out that a cataclysm of this magnitude together with continental drift could account for what come call paleomagnetism, or geomagnetism. Also there is the reference to the division of the earth in the days of Peleg.
__
Bgood wrote
So the seas were there before the flood and after the flood only much larger afterwards? All this is speculation.


Well yeah. This is getting annoying. It's a theory of course it is speculation, at least scientifically speaking. Just dismiss it, don't bother keeping an open mind.
__

Bgood wrote
That is ok for you? You don't want to discover the mechanics whch caused the differing amount of erosion? You are ok with saying that rates are different and that is the reason its different? This is again speculation, and you are doing this so that the evidence fits your theory. I am not speaking of sedimentation on the mountains as much as the sedimentation originating from the mountains. There are measurements of total sedimentation. There are also measurements of erosion rates, chemical makeup, stratification and rock type. Why not have the theory fit the evidence?

This is garbage, this isn't even worth the bit's it takes up. Speculate, see what evidence fits, re speculate, if you haven't understood how science works yet, than I now understand why you dismiss and attack rather than openly explore these ideas. There is this and there is that. Claim. Claim. Claim. It is ludicrous to even think that you can show any convincing argument that says you know the variables that determine the age of a mountain. Just in case anyone hasn't already figured it out yet, mountain aging is pseudo science that contains numerous assumptions.
__
Bgood wrote
How do you know? Were you there when the water was less salty? Wouldn't all the salt have been washed from the land in the great flood? Is any of this a conclusion based on extrapolation or is it again speculation?

Do you have anything of value to add to this thread, or will it be continuous dismissal and attack? Theories are developed through speculation and observation.

Jbuza wrote: The eons of eons that it would take to create the quantity of sediment that is evident in a lake bottom or delta, and the eons of eons that it would take to refill them after some cataclysmic uplift that turned all the lake bottoms and Deltas into mountains is conjecture; and somewhat amusing.

Perhaps it can also be seen as evidence that it took eons and eons for this to have taken place.

Jbuza wrote:I already explained by creation theory what kind of a cataclysmic event would have or could have caused river deltas and lake bottoms, according to your words, I would just say low areas, because that is what those things are, to become uplifted carrying their loads of sediment with them.

But what of the ongoing processes of today. Are they not enough to sufficiently explain these observations?

Jbuza wrote:But you often respond with dismissal and attack instead of engagement and co-operation to further the hypotheses to see if they do predict and do explain.

I am only trying to foster thought. If I came across as dismissive I apologize.

Jbuza wrote:All the while failing to offer a better explanation of how evolution caused massive loads of sediment to be on mountains uplifting low areas, and apparently or obviously creating some other low area that became the new low areas, to include new lakes and deltas.

I did offer explanations, please review former posts. The whole purpose of this thread was an attempt by me to educate all the readers more on geology. But as soon as I began you had objections.

Jbuza wrote:I tried to explain how a complex body like earth existing in an equilibrium between uplift forces of expansion and gravity forces and weight of crust could lose its equilibrium. This flood caused the splitting into plates as is apparent and theorized, caused some areas to be pushed up into mountain ranges, and other areas to sink that are now deltas, lakes, and oceans.

How can you make this statement? How did the flood cause the plates to split? How do you know the Earths crust was not always in flux.

Jbuza wrote:You fail to respond to the geological column flipping that would happen when the major eroding mechanism, water, trenched down into canyons and created all the sediment from progressively older/lower strata that are visible in those canyons, and deposited it on top of the sediment that was already in the lakes and deltas before they uplifted, by some unknown evolutionary force.

Again basic geology. Erosion causes sedimentation. This sedimentation once deposited and under pressure from sedimentation above can compress it into a rock. Millions of years can go by until it is uplifted and becomes part of a mountain. At this point it has solidified into a rock which we call sedimentary rock. It may contain fossils. If this rock is eroded again it will become part of a new layer of sedimentation. Most of the earth's crust is igneous rock. Sedimentation is like a light dusting on top.

Jbuza wrote:__
Bgood wrote
If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Floating that reminds me of water. It has been theorized that much of the flood waters that apparently flowed causing the uplift, unless you continue to believe an unknown evolutionary force, were suspended between, or within dry land. Many volcanic and geyser eruptions are made up of a large quantity of water, so this theory has some plausibility to it

Are you saying that there were no mountains before the great flood? The uplift is continuing today. See Kashmir region in recent news. It is not an unknown force and in earlier posts you agreed. You equate a presence of water in geysers to there being huge chambers of water underneath the Earth's surface. Thats quite a leap in thinking.
__

Jbuza wrote:75% of the crust of earth has sedimentary rock in it, and sedimentary rock exists where gravity wouldn't put it. Those are two true things, what's the problem?

The Earth's crust is primarily Igneous. These are sedimentary rocks placed there by uplift. Not sedimentation.

Jbuza wrote:Yes there are uplift forces, uplift forces are not gravity, they as I have theorized are caused by gravity; the extra weight of water that had, by creation theory, existed throughout the crust in equilibrium caused uplift. When it pooled in areas it added to the weight of the crust and caused uplift pressure at those locations that did not have this extra weight.

As far as I am aware igneous rocks tend to be denser than water so wouldn't it be the other way around?
__

Jbuza wrote:I don't exactly know, wasn't there, don't have all the answers. I would hypothesize however that when the water began to recede that areas began to have no water pressure on them and other areas still had water pressure. This difference is what throws things out of stasis, and is perhaps what fractured the crust into the plates. It seems reasonable that those areas that had more weight from water would descend and those areas that did not have this additional weight would ascend, and of course as this process started the disequilibrium would increase as water ran into ever lowering areas and ran from ever raising areas. As I pointed out before and as evidence supports this process continues to this day. There continues to be uplift and sinking.

Yes but opposite of what you proposed. The evidence does not show the oceans continuing to sink as you have stated.

Jbuza wrote:Yes, you will find from the first 11 words of what you quoted that this was speculation, but your dismissal by arbitrarily saying the evidence doesn't support this wasn't helpful or interested in furthering knowledge.

Ignoring the evidence doesn't help in furthering knowledge.

Jbuza wrote:I realize that you have been indoctrinated to think that man has all the answers, but it certainly isn't convincing for you just to claim that you have the knowledge that oceans no longer sink.

You're the one claiming to have all the answers, I am only being critical and skeptical as a scientist should be. Do you have measurements that show otherwise? As far as I am aware I have seen no measurements of the ocean floor sinking. Everytime there is an earthquake the reflections of the subsequent vibrations are measured and analyzed. Thus we have the thickness of the crust at various locations including the ocean floor, and there is no evidence of the ocean floor sinking.

Jbuza wrote:There continues to be uplift, and volcanism, so I would theorize from these observations that creation theory would explain this by a corresponding sinking in the oceans. This interplay is what creates the pressure. IT is reasonable and logical to theorize that this process would slow down and even stop, as equilibrium was reached. There may be human records or evidence to suggest that volcanism was more rampant in earth's past than it has now.

The records are there you can check. http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/lowman/lowman.html

Jbuza wrote:I will address your question about activity at ocean ridges. Plate tectonics. The release of the waters onto the face of the earth and their movement across it shattered the crust into these plates. Evolution has no explanation for why we see plate tectonics.

With no mechanism for this I would have to say that you have no explanation either. Evolution has nothing to do with plate techtonics.

Jbuza wrote:Again dismissal with a bit of intellectual superiority built in. Clearly you have been a good product of the world, because you believe that educated people come to realize that evolution is true.

No, I only wish to have an educated debate and am being honest with you when I am saying that you need to learn a bit more about the subject.

Jbuza wrote:I will just leave the rest of this garbage where it is and only add that you continue to ignore the questions within this thread that I ask of evolution, and simply attack and counter. Which leads nowhere.

I will not ignore anymore questions if you can ask them in a simple and concise manor so I know which ones to answer.

Jbuza wrote:This is speculation. While tectonic uplift is apparent, there is no way of knowing that an oceanic ridge has built into the large dry land mountain ranges.

This is extrapolation and evidence supports this. The rock which makes up the Himalayas is the same rock which forms the crust under the Indian super continent.
__

Bgood wrote

Sedimentation is not uniform throughout the world, this would support regional sedimentation . . . .
Erosion increases the loose material on and down stream of the mountain. The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes for example. . . .Explain why sedimentaion from the appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.

So are you saying that you support a global flood? If you can tell that both mountain ranges are a different age based upon the fact that they have different amounts of “loose material on and down stream of the mountain”, and . “The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes”, than you must be supposing they have been subject to the exact same environment. This is speculation and is more of you grabbing at straws to dismiss and attack to try and disprove the theory that explains these questions, so that you don't have to accept God. There is no reason to assume from evolution or creation that mountians would, weather, build, or deteriorate at the same rates. Even a global flood would deposit things regionally, and have varying current forces.

Again dismissing the evidence. I suppose there is nothing to learn from analyzing the data? Care to go more indepth on the explanation? I am not dismissing God, I am only trying to point out that you are dismissing what God has created.

Measuring the age of a mountain.

As the Indian sub-continent piles into south-east asia it causes fault lines to form. Going north from the collision site one would expect to see younger and younger fault lines.

The convergence of the two plates have been measured to be 5cm a year.

One method of dating has been carbon-14 dating which uses proportions of isotopes to measure the age. However in the Himmalayas organic material is hard to come by. Therefore scientists have turned to another method.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes such as beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. These elements increase over time with exposure to cosmic rays(highly charged particles).

By taking many samples of quartz rocks and analyzing the relative abundance of the isotopes to the normal element a date can be determined.

Jbuza wrote:

The eons of eons that it would take to create the quantity of sediment that is evident in a lake bottom or delta, and the eons of eons that it would take to refill them after some cataclysmic uplift that turned all the lake bottoms and Deltas into mountains is conjecture; and somewhat amusing.
Bgood wrote:
Perhaps it can also be seen as evidence that it took eons and eons for this to have taken place.

So the time frame that evolution poses is now evidence. This is circular nonsense. Our theory of how sedimentary rock came to be on mountains takes a long time therefore the fact that it takes a long time is evidence. My position is that it fact did not take a long time for this process to happen. A global flood would be capable of producing the evidence we see.
__
Jbuza wrote:
I already explained by creation theory what kind of a cataclysmic event would have or could have caused river deltas and lake bottoms, according to your words, I would just say low areas, because that is what those things are, to become uplifted carrying their loads of sediment with them.
Bgood wrote
But what of the ongoing processes of today. Are they not enough to sufficiently explain these observations?

No they are not. What process do you see today that cause river delta's and lakes to become mountians? I see no evidence that river delta's and lakes are becoming mountians.
__

Jbuza wrote:
All the while failing to offer a better explanation of how evolution caused massive loads of sediment to be on mountains uplifting low areas, and apparently or obviously creating some other low area that became the new low areas, to include new lakes and deltas.
Bgood wrote
I did offer explanations, please review former posts. The whole purpose of this thread was an attempt by me to educate all the readers more on geology. But as soon as I began you had objections.

I guess I must have missed it, I saw that you said that Lakes and delta's became mountains, but saw no coherent description of what caused that to happen. Perhaps you are ignoring the fact we see no deltas and lakes becoming mountians.
__
Jbuza wrote:
I tried to explain how a complex body like earth existing in an equilibrium between uplift forces of expansion and gravity forces and weight of crust could lose its equilibrium. This flood caused the splitting into plates as is apparent and theorized, caused some areas to be pushed up into mountain ranges, and other areas to sink that are now deltas, lakes, and oceans.
Bgood wrote
How can you make this statement? How did the flood cause the plates to split? How do you know the Earth's crust was not always in flux.

When the water rushed up from the fountains of the deep, it fractured the crust into plates. I suppose this comes from your idea of uniformitarianism. There is no reason to assume that the Earth was always fractured, especially in light of the evidence for a global flood, which could have caused this. You talk uniformitarianism out of one corner of your mouth to dispute this, but talk about significant change, i.e the opposite of unifromitarianism, to explain how sedimentary rocks became on mountains. I am sure you will talk about eons of eons and speculate your way out of believing what is plain.
__
Jbuza wrote:
You fail to respond to the geological column flipping that would happen when the major eroding mechanism, water, trenched down into canyons and created all the sediment from progressively older/lower strata that are visible in those canyons, and deposited it on top of the sediment that was already in the lakes and deltas before they uplifted, by some unknown evolutionary force.
Bgood wrote
Again basic geology. Erosion causes sedimentation. This sedimentation once deposited and under pressure from sedimentation above can compress it into a rock. Millions of years can go by until it is uplifted and becomes part of a mountain. At this point it has solidified into a rock which we call sedimentary rock. It may contain fossils. If this rock is eroded again it will become part of a new layer of sedimentation. Most of the earth's crust is igneous rock. Sedimentation is like a light dusting on top.

Again what caused it? Millions of years go by and than some unknown force lifted them up; you have no coherent explanation for the uplift of mountains. This goes contrary to uniformitarianism; your position is that things were in equilibrium for millions of years and than lakes and deltas just uplifted. Just happened, that's all, that's good enough for me evolution claims it just happened so I will accept it, hope your satisifed. You put down my explanation without offering anything to explain how delta's and lakes became mountians.
__
Jbuza wrote:
__
Bgood wrote
If you remember from earlier the Earth is composed of tectonic plates. The idea that the Earths crust id made up of disparate plates which float on the outer magma.

Floating that reminds me of water. It has been theorized that much of the flood waters that apparently flowed causing the uplift, unless you continue to believe an unknown evolutionary force, were suspended between, or within dry land. Many volcanic and geyser eruptions are made up of a large quantity of water, so this theory has some plausibility to it

Are you saying that there were no mountains before the great flood? The uplift is continuing today. See Kashmir region in recent news. It is not an unknown force and in earlier posts you agreed. You equate a presence of water in geysers to there being huge chambers of water underneath the Earth's surface. Thats quite a leap in thinking.

I continue to see that you have no knowledge of how science works. You just take in a regurgitate what you have been indoctrinated to believe. How about some independat thought. I have said, I don't know, wasn't there, but would speculate.

Yes uplift continues. Is it your position that only uplift has happened? IS the gravity of earth getting weaker and the crust is just spreading out? It is plausible that the weight of the oceans could be driving the uplift forces, and these forces would slow as equilibrium was reached.

IT is not a great leap in thinking, it is how science works, but you again fail to see the process at work. The hypothesis is that water was contained by the crust of the earth, and that when it came out cracking up the crust, it flooded the earth. Geysers are simply observations that water can indeed be trapped below the crust, and can indeed be expelled by some force. The earth's crust is indeed capable of holding great quantities of water, and pressurizing it. So as you can see I did not leap from geysers to global floods.
__
Jbuza wrote:
75% of the crust of earth has sedimentary rock in it, and sedimentary rock exists where gravity wouldn't put it. Those are two true things, what's the problem?
Bgood wrote
The Earth's crust is primarily Igneous. These are sedimentary rocks placed there by uplift. Not sedimentation.

What proof do you have that they were rocks when uplifted? What caused the uplift? Although the earth's crust may be primarily composed of igneous rock, 75% of the earths crust is covered by sedimentary rock and sediment.
__
Jbuza wrote:
Yes there are uplift forces, uplift forces are not gravity, they as I have theorized are caused by gravity; the extra weight of water that had, by creation theory, existed throughout the crust in equilibrium caused uplift. When it pooled in areas it added to the weight of the crust and caused uplift pressure at those locations that did not have this extra weight.

Bgood wrote
As far as I am aware igneous rocks tend to be denser than water so wouldn't it be the other way around?


No, it wouldn't The crust of the earth exists in both places, so they cancel each other out, and create an equilibrium between forces, the water is extra weight on top of the rocks. This does though, and I appreciate the thought provoking comment, point out that oceans should be deeper and more wide spread than mountains are tall and wide spread. The volume of rock lifted up into mountains would have to be much much smaller than the volume of water in the oceans for the two forces to equalize. We do see that water covers 70% - 75% of the earth, and that oceans are much deeper than mountains are high. These observations lend credence toward this hypothesis.
__
Jbuza wrote:
I don't exactly know, wasn't there, don't have all the answers. I would hypothesize however that when the water began to recede that areas began to have no water pressure on them and other areas still had water pressure. This difference is what throws things out of stasis, and is perhaps what fractured the crust into the plates. It seems reasonable that those areas that had more weight from water would descend and those areas that did not have this additional weight would ascend, and of course as this process started the disequilibrium would increase as water ran into ever lowering areas and ran from ever raising areas. As I pointed out before and as evidence supports this process continues to this day. There continues to be uplift and sinking.
Bgood wrote
Yes but opposite of what you proposed. The evidence does not show the oceans continuing to sink as you have stated.

Perhaps you should try to educate yourself. There is lots of evidence that says the oceans have gotten deeper. Look if you want, don't if you don't.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html
__
Jbuza wrote:
Yes, you will find from the first 11 words of what you quoted that this was speculation, but your dismissal by arbitrarily saying the evidence doesn't support this wasn't helpful or interested in furthering knowledge.
Bgood wrote
Ignoring the evidence doesn't help in furthering knowledge. And I guess it is so because you said it. Exactley what evidence am I ignoring?
--
Jbuza wrote:
I realize that you have been indoctrinated to think that man has all the answers, but it certainly isn't convincing for you just to claim that you have the knowledge that oceans no longer sink.
Bgood wrote
You're the one claiming to have all the answers, I am only being critical and skeptical as a scientist should be. Do you have measurements that show otherwise? As far as I am aware I have seen no measurements of the ocean floor sinking. Everytime there is an earthquake the reflections of the subsequent vibrations are measured and analyzed. Thus we have the thickness of the crust at various locations including the ocean floor, and there is no evidence of the ocean floor sinking.


Yeah sure. I'll bet if you go back through this thread you will not see me say several times that I am not a geology expert, and you will not see me say I do not have the answers. Grow up. I have made it clear that I am speculating, but you still dismiss and attack instead of engage and investigate. You claim that since I didn't give you measurements that you have the answer and that there is no evidence the sea floor sinks. I am simply not going to respond to this kind of trash anymore.

Jbuza wrote:
There continues to be uplift, and volcanism, so I would theorize from these observations that creation theory would explain this by a corresponding sinking in the oceans. This interplay is what creates the pressure. IT is reasonable and logical to theorize that this process would slow down and even stop, as equilibrium was reached. There may be human records or evidence to suggest that volcanism was more rampant in earth's past than it has now.
Bgood wrote
The records are there you can check. http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/lowman/lowman.html

Well this assumes the earth has been around at least a million years. Must be influenced by evolution theory.
__
Jbuza wrote:
I will address your question about activity at ocean ridges. Plate tectonics. The release of the waters onto the face of the earth and their movement across it shattered the crust into these plates. Evolution has no explanation for why we see plate tectonics.
Bgood wrote
With no mechanism for this I would have to say that you have no explanation either. Evolution has nothing to do with plate techtonics.

Are you even reading this? The mechanism for this is the pressure of the water being forced out.
__
Jbuza wrote:
Again dismissal with a bit of intellectual superiority built in. Clearly you have been a good product of the world, because you believe that educated people come to realize that evolution is true.
No, I only wish to have an educated debate and am being honest with you when I am saying that you need to learn a bit more about the subject.

Yeah because if I new everything I would clearly subscribe to evolution. This is junk. Dismiss and Attack.
__
Jbuza wrote:
I will just leave the rest of this garbage where it is and only add that you continue to ignore the questions within this thread that I ask of evolution, and simply attack and counter. Which leads nowhere.

Bgood wrote
I will not ignore anymore questions if you can ask them in a simple and concise manor so I know which ones to answer.

o.k.
__
Jbuza wrote:
This is speculation. While tectonic uplift is apparent, there is no way of knowing that an oceanic ridge has built into the large dry land mountain ranges.
Bgood wrote
This is extrapolation and evidence supports this. The rock which makes up the Himalayas is the same rock which forms the crust under the Indian super continent.

Evidence doesn't support that all the mountain ranges on all the continents started out as ridges on ocean floors. This is a laughable claim, you have no evidence to support this. They could have started out on land just where they are.
__
Quote:

Bgood wrote

Sedimentation is not uniform throughout the world, this would support regional sedimentation . . . .
Erosion increases the loose material on and down stream of the mountain. The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes for example. . . .Explain why sedimentaion from the appalachian is farther removed and in greater quantities than the sedimentation from lets say the Rockies.

Jbuza wrote
So are you saying that you support a global flood? If you can tell that both mountain ranges are a different age based upon the fact that they have different amounts of “loose material on and down stream of the mountain”, and . “The Apalachians are far more weathered than the Andes”, than you must be supposing they have been subject to the exact same environment. This is speculation and is more of you grabbing at straws to dismiss and attack to try and disprove the theory that explains these questions, so that you don't have to accept God. There is no reason to assume from evolution or creation that mountians would, weather, build, or deteriorate at the same rates. Even a global flood would deposit things regionally, and have varying current forces.
Bgood wrote
Again dismissing the evidence. I suppose there is nothing to learn from analyzing the data? Care to go more indepth on the explanation? I am not dismissing God, I am only trying to point out that you are dismissing what God has created.


This is trash, and points out your continues lack of understanding how logic and reason came to be and how the scientific method works. I formed a hypothesis based on what I suspect to be true, and I am explaining how thewse hypotheses explain the observations.

What exactly am I dismissing, because if you have a verifiable observation that disprooves what I am saying, I would love to hear it.
_________________

Jbuza wrote: So the time frame that evolution poses is now evidence. This is circular nonsense. Our theory of how sedimentary rock came to be on mountains takes a long time therefore the fact that it takes a long time is evidence. My position is that it fact did not take a long time for this process to happen. A global flood would be capable of producing the evidence we see.

All I am saying is that given what we have today based on observation it is not unreasonable to infer that this process took a long time, but if you want to disagree that is ok.

Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
But what of the ongoing processes of today. Are they not enough to sufficiently explain these observations?

No they are not. What process do you see today that cause river delta's and lakes to become mountians? I see no evidence that river delta's and lakes are becoming mountians.

But you do admit to uplift? Given enough time uplift will result in mountains, no?

Jbuza wrote: I guess I must have missed it, I saw that you said that Lakes and delta's became mountains, but saw no coherent description of what caused that to happen. Perhaps you are ignoring the fact we see no deltas and lakes becoming mountians.

Mountains due to erosion eventually get eroded away. Uplift causes mountains to form and lifts sedimentary rocks along with it. All of these processes takes alot of time, you wouldn't be able to observe it. Just as noone has observed these vast underwater springs or the formation of the plates.

Jbuza wrote:I tried to explain how a complex body like earth existing in an equilibrium between uplift forces of expansion and gravity forces and weight of crust could lose its equilibrium. This flood caused the splitting into plates as is apparent and theorized, caused some areas to be pushed up into mountain ranges, and other areas to sink that are now deltas, lakes, and oceans.

What is the basis of the beleif that the uplift forces are from expansion. They are due to two plates pushing into one another.

Jbuza wrote:When the water rushed up from the fountains of the deep, it fractured the crust into plates. I suppose this comes from your idea of uniformitarianism.

Uniformitarianism?

Jbuza wrote:There is no reason to assume that the Earth was always fractured, especially in light of the evidence for a global flood, which could have caused this.

What evidence of a global flood?

Jbuza wrote:You talk uniformitarianism out of one corner of your mouth to dispute this, but talk about significant change, i.e the opposite of unifromitarianism, to explain how sedimentary rocks became on mountains. I am sure you will talk about eons of eons and speculate your way out of believing what is plain.

You already said that the uplift forces do exist. There is no reason to assume that there was a significant change to the structure of the Earth. The movement of the plates is derived from analysis of rocks from Continents now separated by Oceans. Analysis which shows that the compositions and fossils found within are the same .

Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
Again what caused it? Millions of years go by and than some unknown force lifted them up; you have no coherent explanation for the uplift of mountains.

The movement of the plates causes uplift to occur at points of contact.

Jbuza wrote:This goes contrary to uniformitarianism; your position is that things were in equilibrium for millions of years and than lakes and deltas just uplifted.

No there is no equilibrium the Earth's crust is constantly changing.

Jbuza wrote:Just happened, that's all, that's good enough for me evolution claims it just happened so I will accept it, hope your satisifed. You put down my explanation without offering anything to explain how delta's and lakes became mountians.

Again please read up more on tectonic plate theory, you are arguing against something else. Uniformitarianism is not tectonic plate theory.

Jbuza wrote:I continue to see that you have no knowledge of how science works. You just take in a regurgitate what you have been indoctrinated to believe. How about some independat thought. I have said, I don't know, wasn't there, but would speculate.

I am examining the evidence, and am more inclined to beleive that the thermal energy in the Earths core is responsible for volcanoes, geysers, and Earthquakes. And Judging from the article below you are the one regurgitating.

Jbuza wrote:Yes uplift continues. Is it your position that only uplift has happened? IS the gravity of earth getting weaker and the crust is just spreading out? It is plausible that the weight of the oceans could be driving the uplift forces, and these forces would slow as equilibrium was reached.

As I stated earlier the Continents are relatively denser compared to the Oceans. Take the thickness of the Earth's crust in the oceans and add it to the density of the water above it and it is less dense per cubic mile than the continents.

Jbuza wrote:IT is not a great leap in thinking, it is how science works, but you again fail to see the process at work. The hypothesis is that water was contained by the crust of the earth, and that when it came out cracking up the crust, it flooded the earth. Geysers are simply observations that water can indeed be trapped below the crust, and can indeed be expelled by some force. The earth's crust is indeed capable of holding great quantities of water, and pressurizing it. So as you can see I did not leap from geysers to global floods.

Where is the water in the geyser comming from?http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/geysers.html

Jbuza wrote: What proof do you have that they were rocks when uplifted? What caused the uplift? Although the earth's crust may be primarily composed of igneous rock, 75% of the earths crust is covered by sedimentary rock and sediment.

Again the uplift is caused by the movement of the continental plates.

Jbuza wrote:Yes there are uplift forces, uplift forces are not gravity, they as I have theorized are caused by gravity; the extra weight of water that had, by creation theory, existed throughout the crust in equilibrium caused uplift. When it pooled in areas it added to the weight of the crust and caused uplift pressure at those locations that did not have this extra weight.

So if I were to Take a mountain and throw it in the ocean it would float? Because in order for your theory to work the Continents would have to have a lower density and therefore weight than the oceans.

Jbuza wrote:No, it wouldn't The crust of the earth exists in both places, so they cancel each other out, and create an equilibrium between forces, the water is extra weight on top of the rocks. This does though, and I appreciate the thought provoking comment, point out that oceans should be deeper and more wide spread than mountains are tall and wide spread. The volume of rock lifted up into mountains would have to be much much smaller than the volume of water in the oceans for the two forces to equalize. We do see that water covers 70% - 75% of the earth, and that oceans are much deeper than mountains are high. These observations lend credence toward this hypothesis.

Then would'nt the tendancy be that already low regions would go lower and already high regions go higher? Then why are there fossilized marine forms on the tops of mountains? Also why do the oceans not get deeper, universally. Also you seem to think that the earth is some sort of baloon where pressure in one area will cause uplift in another. The interior of the Earth is a very dence molten lava.

Jbuza wrote: Perhaps you should try to educate yourself. There is lots of evidence that says the oceans have gotten deeper. Look if you want, don't if you don't.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html

Try reading the second article, it states that the collision of the two plates lead to the falling of the sea level innitially. This is known as subduction. This is what occurs in the east Asian pacific rim. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwl ... art10.html Then as the Indian subcontinent converged the movement of the plates thrusted the relatively lighter sedimentation up creating the Himalayans.
I Understand that you are speculating, is it wrong for me to try to inform you and other members of this forum? As you can clearly see I'm only tring to invoke thought and present evidence.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
The records are there you can check. http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/lowman/lowman.html

Well this assumes the earth has been around at least a million years. Must be influenced by evolution theory.

Ok how about this link then.
http://www.vesuvioinrete.it/e_storia.htm
Its of Vesuvius.
Analysis of lava flows and historical accounts point to a periodic pattern of erruption and not a slowdown as you speculated.

Jbuza wrote:Are you even reading this? The mechanism for this is the pressure of the water being forced out.

But you stated it was a speculation, I cannot counter with evidence.

Jbuza wrote:Yeah because if I new everything I would clearly subscribe to evolution. This is junk. Dismiss and Attack.

Again no, I am honestly trying to get you interested in geology, whatever conclusions you come to is fine by me.

Jbuza wrote:Evidence doesn't support that all the mountain ranges on all the continents started out as ridges on ocean floors. This is a laughable claim, you have no evidence to support this. They could have started out on land just where they are.

I did not claim that all land originated in ocean ridges, only that mountains could plausibly have formed from tectonic movement.

Jbuza wrote:This is trash, and points out your continues lack of understanding how logic and reason came to be and how the scientific method works. I formed a hypothesis based on what I suspect to be true, and I am explaining how thewse hypotheses explain the observations.

And you are denying any evidence against it.
Thats not how science works.

Jbuza wrote:What exactly am I dismissing, because if you have a verifiable observation that disprooves what I am saying, I would love to hear it.

Well lets just start with seismic measurements, and seismology.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/waves.html
It is through the study of seismic waves that we are able to determine the thickness of the crust at various points on the Earth. This measurement also allows one to determine consistency, make-up, and ocean depths.

Bgood wrote
As I stated earlier the Continents are relatively denser compared to the Oceans. Take the thickness of the Earth's crust in the oceans and add it to the density of the water above it and it is less dense per cubic mile than the continents.



I'm not sure where you got your information, but most ocean crust is basalt and is denser than continental crust which is granite in large part. The rock on the ocean floor is more dense than the rock on the continents. Your claim here is false. The oceans are oceans because the crust is more dense and sit lower in the mantle than the continental crust.

You asked about my theory treating the earth like a balloon. In that my theory indicates that a sinking of oceans creates the uplift that makes for observable mountains. A push here creates a swelling of the balloon elsewhere and the quantity of mass is conserved. The sea floor is spreading all the time increasing the widths of the oceans and driving the plates together building mountains. Evidence supports oceans that deepened, and evidence supports the sinking of the ocean floors today. The materials between the two types of crust is different, the one already capable of spreading and pushing the other. When you add water to the equation, you get an additional force causing the uplift that builds mountains. Evolution also explains a pangea and small inlets that became oceans, so the evidence is pretty solid prompting hypothetical explanation from both sides.

You will in fact find from the scientific evidence that the heavy ocean crust is sinking underneath the continents, the tremendous force caused by the water in these oceans adds to the sinking of this oceanic crust back into the mantel. I do find plate tectonics to be a reasonable explanation of the hypothesized fracturing of the earth by the uplift of water during the global flood from creation theory. If the seas continue to sink underneath the continents with no corresponding uplift , than the globe will become smaller and more dense, and the lands would fall back into the sea and spread over it trapping all the water in the crust. This clearly is not happening, as the ocean sinks and spreads out it drives the plates into each other creating uplift. What is happening is in fact the opposite, the oceans are spreading and sinking, and the continents are being pushed further and further together and uplifting at ever decreasing rates. Since the subducted ocean floor is the materiel that feeds into the mantel, and corresponding material is being forced out of the mantel by volcanism, than it is reasonable to theorize that the sinking of the ocean floor beneath the continents is a sinking, and that it is causing an uplift elsewhere on the planet. Otherwise if their was no sinking to offset the uplift, than the globe would be getting bigger. That has not happened.

The flood in creation theory explains all these things. These observations are evidence of a great global flood.

Meanwhile evolution has no explanation of how these things came to be. They skip the whole investigative process, and simply say The Law of Uniformitarianism applies, and eons of eons of eons just made things be. What is ancient? Rome and Greece. Egypt. Yes. Until evolution came along. Now indoctrination says, there is no purpose, the modern era in the year of our LORD is .000522 of time. Talk about speculation, there is no evidence that 99.9% of time was before recorded history. Talk about speculation, evolution claims that everything is uniform in that speculated unknown past.

All I can say is crawl up out of the mud with your ape bros, and realize that you are made in the image of God and are singular and fearsome. Worthwhile and eternal. Damned or not. You choose peaceful oblivion in utter nonsense, or life and light and truth.

Bgood wrote
So if I were to Take a mountain and throw it in the ocean it would float? Because in order for your theory to work the Continents would have to have a lower density and therefore weight than the oceans.


No this is silly. The theory does work, and continental crust is lower density than ocean crust. Evidence will show you that neither will float in water. Evidence will also show you that both continual and oceanic crust will float on the mantel of the earth. I think this is a moot point now, I was perhaps not as clear as I tried to be.
__
Bgood wrote
Then would'nt the tendancy be that already low regions would go lower and already high regions go higher? Then why are there fossilized marine forms on the tops of mountains? Also why do the oceans not get deeper, universally. Also you seem to think that the earth is some sort of baloon where pressure in one area will cause uplift in another. The interior of the Earth is a very dence molten lava.

Why Indeed. Uniformitarianism is an evolutionary construct, and is not science. There is no reason to assume that the earth has always existed in the same state and in the same environment. As I already addressed the balloon thing, I would just like to comment on the rest of this. First off it is clear from geology and plate tectonics, that in fact there is a tendency for the lower regions to get lower and the high regions to get higher. This is supported by the evidence. This is a fact. The low regions at least the oceans are getting lower, and they are causing forces that drive the plates together and cause uplift, that is the high places are getting higher.

Since this is so. How does evolution explain seafloors on mountains?

Creation theory indicates that the earth was flooded, so sediments could have been placed most any place on the planet. My personal hypothetical framework is that it is unlikely that mountains existed or at least to the extent they do now before the flood. I believe this because the flood causes the forces that build mountains, so they could not have been built before the forces came into play.

The crust of the earth was fractured when the water was released. Water rushed upon the land and as is seen by water evidence great weathering would have taken place, and massive loads of sediment would have been generated, when the waters began to recede, the extra weight on already more dense areas caused a great sinking and spreading, and a massive pushing of the continents togather and an uplift.

I believe Earth was indeed covered with water, not during the flood but early on within its history. As far as I'm aware science on Earth's history does not go against such a postulation, but seems to agree with such a hypothesis. In Scripture, there are passages which highlight this point, while I think at the same time nicely depict an old Earth. Proverbs 8:22-29 says,

• 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
  before his deeds of old;
  
  23 I was appointed from eternity,
  from the beginning, before the world began.
  
  24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
  when there were no springs abounding with water;
  
  25 before the mountains were settled in place,
  before the hills, I was given birth,
  
  26 before he made the earth or its fields
  or any of the dust of the world.
  
  27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
  when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
  
  28 when he established the clouds above
  and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
  
  29 when he gave the sea its boundary
  so the waters would not overstep his command,
  and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

It seems giving the seas their boundaries was one of God's "deeds of old." Deeds which all appear to be during God's creative acts in the beginning. Thus, some of the evidence used to advocate a global flood scenario (such as remains of marine life on mountains) need not be due to a global flood scenario, but simply a matter of plate techtonics.

Many may be aware I do not believe in a "global" flood scenario, and I find it particularly significant to read what Peter believed to be the extent of the flood:

• But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

I also think the article on the GodandScience.org website at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html provides a great deal of insight for Christians regarding the flood.

Kurieuo.

Genesis 6

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

If what you say is true than this is not. I choose to beleive the Word of God.

Jbuza wrote:Also there is the reference to the division of the earth in the days of Peleg.

This dividing is that of nations and tongues: Language Babel.

Jbuza wrote:I don't think they rested after the water stopped coming to the degree this suggests. I think the current activity wihtin the global ocean fo rthat time when it was covered with water could have shaped the new face of the earth a great deal.

As I had said, the Earth's mantle was destoyed. The Earth is now repairing itself, slowly. Everything in nature moans and groans (because of Sin), the flood is part of the cause. When you cut your skin, it forms a new barrier while the old one knits itself back together. I believe the Earth is doing just that.

gritty

Bgood wrote:One method of dating has been carbon-14 dating which uses proportions of isotopes to measure the age. However in the Himmalayas organic material is hard to come by. Therefore scientists have turned to another method.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes such as beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. These elements increase over time with exposure to cosmic rays(highly charged particles).

C-14 Dating has been proven inacurate, and does not work at all. I have not studied B-10 or A-26 Dating. But I assume that if you are getting wrong answers, it does not work either.

gritty

Sorry, kurio, I am tired of OE YE debate. All I can say is that I totally dis agree.

gritty