Not unless there is an indication that a layer has been adulterated.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The idea that even a whole mountain of water could move a mountain made of rock (a real mountain iow) is a stretch, prima facie. But if you have a 'piston and cylinder' arrangement, where the 'cylinder' is filled with water, and the 'piston' made of solid rock, "floats" on the water, then this becomes mechanically possible to my brain. I can picture and appreciate that rock can under those conditions float on water, even though rock is 2-3 times as dense as water. With a piston and cylinder, the piston pushes against the fluid in the cylinder, and liquid water while not perfectly in-compressible (if I remember my Science studies correctly) is not perfectly compressible either (like a gas), so it would hold whatever weight the rock piston would impose upon it. The water wouldn't be crushed, iow.
So if that's the arrangement you have between water underground, and the ground, then we would expect the "Blue Marble" image from 7000 years ago would be more green and less blue.
Was this rock floating on water uniformly covering the earth? Or were mountain ranges like the Andes already extant? It seems from both the scriptures and from a model where there is rock floating on water, that it can't be that the mountain ranges were already there before the Flood. They must have formed during the Flood period.
So what physical evidence do we expect to find on the highest peaks of mountains that will conflict with the idea that they have been mountains for 'millions of years' instead of just for 5000 years? There must be something. Something microscopic, something 'quantum' or other, something 'relativistic', something we can observe or measure.
If there's anything at all at the peaks of all the world's tallest mountains that's in conflict with the theory that they have been the highest mountain peaks for a million years, and if there's a complete absence of anything there that conflicts with mountain peaks being no more than 5000 years old, then this is a pretty good case.
The confirmation bias is strong with this one.Your statement is so woefully uniformed it can only be because you actively avoid any honest discussion of the topic.
I just recognize that many creationists act out of desperation and make no effort to control for their own bias. Let's see the footprint evidence, and see if you have honest discourse about it.
Your statement is so woefully uniformed it can only be because you actively avoid any honest discussion of the topic.
How do we know it sat on sediments?
Human footprints preserved in rock are not new, just often misunderstood.
Fossilized Human Footprint Found Nestled in a Giant Sloth Footprint
An incredibly preserved set of tracks tell the story of an ancient hunt.
www.theatlantic.com
If the sloth had been following the person, its larger footprint would have annihilated the smaller one. If the person had been walking in the footsteps of a sloth that had long passed, their feet would have squished into any water or sediment that had collected in the old tracks, creating a distinctive pattern. Bennett and his colleagues found no such pattern. All the evidence was consistent with someone keeping pace with an animal that was ahead of them.
“It really does look like they were contemporaneous,” says Anthony Martin from Emory University, who specializes in tracks and other so-called trace fossils. “This is a common problem we have with dinosaur tracks: We have something that looks like following behavior, but could have been offset by days or weeks. Here, the humans maybe had the sloth in sight.”
I'm not sure tidal wave is the right word, but it's the closest thing we have to describe what was happening during a one time global event.
But in vast areas of the world the depth of the water was very shallow relative to lakes and oceans we have today. And the water was moving a lot, quite a bit more violent than floods we see today in that large swaths of liquid were being uplifted, blown, shaken, and falling into sudden depressions. This would have lead to the necessity of bare sediments being exposed at times.
The verses that say the ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat but they weren't sure if the water was gone. The tenor of the account suggests they'd been in that situation before.
The account as written reads like it was, the sediment evidence is consistent with it, and no living thing could live through it. In fact, if the situation (constant water) stayed the same until the water subsided there would be a better chance of someone surviving that compared to a constantly changing landscape that nearly always had water running over it.
Because water is more fluid than sediments, and sediments fall (and spread) when fast moving water slows down. In other words, because the earth was covered with sediment laden water, that's all there was to land on when the water left a "blank spot" sometimes.
You first have to show you can give the evidence a fair hearing. Tell me the contrary evidence you know about so far.
The ark settled after the rains stopped, but not before.
I have not seen footprint evidence at all. Fossilized remains are more reliable.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think that anyone has claimed that the initial blast is what killed everyone.
Right Divider
Body part
I concur... his videos are definitely worth a watch and even some re-watches.
Right Divider
Body part
The fact that this passage says that "all of the high hills were covered" seems to indicate that no mountains existed at that time.
Last edited:
Very next verse...
Ok... so... you aren't even trying. Have a nice day, I guess.
Derf
Well-known member
I'd say he's very trying.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's why I ignore him. I only read him in reflection, and I've never seen a reason to stop ignoring him
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I see what you did there lol
Rock layers where fossils are found contain volcanic ash that can be dated. Different layers are consistent with different ages. Dinosaurs and humans are not even close. The fossils themselves are not as old as dinosaurs either. https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/how-do-scientists-date-rocks-and-fossils/
Foot print evidence is yours to present. Why would I go looking for your evidence?