Flood Evidences — revised

[SA Huguenot]

Yes, we can date certain rocks. They tell us how old the mountains are. It would take over 5 vertical miles of water to cover the Earth, and yet there is no evidence that that happened ever.

Moving water leaves marks. We can observe and date much smaller, and often older floods. Yet we don't see any evidence for the one flood that should be undeniable.

Why do you think the Himalias were 5 vertical miles high during the flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think the Himalias were 5 vertical miles high during the flood?

Because we can date mountains. Do you want to go over radiometric dating? We don't even need that to know that they are millions of years old.

 

[SA Huguenot]

You asked a nonsensical question that only tells us that you have no clue.

Once again water has mass. Just in case you forgot your high school physics the formulas you need to remember is KE = (1/2)mv^2 and PE = mgh.


The water from space problem means that you would cook Noah. You would have both KE and PE. PE alone would cook them.

And please, don't lie about not understanding the Bible. My understanding is almost certainly far superior to yours. You at best can focus on some insignificant bits but miss the big picture because you let your own religious beliefs get in the way.

This is interesting indeed.
You say you understand the Bible. perhaps you can explain to me how Emmanuel Kant took Genesis, and came up with the Nebular theory?
Then continue to tell me how was it possible that what science today understand about the Origins of the Solar system, is exactly the same as what kant wrote down in 1755.
I will wait for your answer!

Genesis the blueprint of the Nebulat theory,
Wow did atheists try to hide the facts from us all!
I love it!

 

[Audie]

It varies from place to place but his hot water is a constant 52 c, has been for the last 8 years. It keeps the place snug and the pool warm, i have enjoyed a swim in it on Christmas day with 3 inches of snow on the ground

I was at an outdoor hot springs pool in Alaska in December!
It was around minus 30 degrees.

What an experience! Out of the pool, swimsuit and
wet hair, you steam like crazy as you head inside!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Because we can date mountains. Do you want to go over radiometric dating? We don't even need that to know that they are millions of years old.

Really, and are you sure the Himalyans are not only 4500 years old made up of very old matter?

 

[SA Huguenot]

It varies from place to place but his hot water is a constant 52 c, has been for the last 8 years. It keeps the place snug and the pool warm, i have enjoyed a swim in it on Christmas day with 3 inches of snow on the ground

Did you find any whales?
In the hot springs?

 

[ChristineM]

I was at an outdoor hot springs pool in Alaska in December!
It was around minus 30 degrees.

What an experience! Out of the pool, swimsuit and
wet hair, you steam like crazy as you head inside!

Cool

 

[ChristineM]

Did you find any whales?
In the hot springs?

 

[SA Huguenot]

sorry, I just had to put that jab in there.
I wont joke like that again.

 

[ChristineM]

sorry, I just had to put that jab in there.
I wont joke like that again.

And i just had to put a facepalm in reply

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, and are you sure the Himalyans are not only 4500 years old made up of very old matter?

Because of how we date the rocks. This is why you should try to learn instead of trusting sources that lie to you.

 

[sooda]

Then again, how do you date the Mountain?
By the rocks.
And the Rocks?
By Radio isotope tests on its decay!
And what does the decay rate say.
The Minirals are 500 million years old.
What does the tests say?
The rocks are old.
And, does it contradict with what the Bible say?
Not at all, because the Bible say the matter in the Earth is 600 years PLUS and period of unmeasurable time which can be billions of years!
What does this link tell us about the Himalyas's formation?
There were ancestral mountains that is now subdued below the current mountains.!
Wow, so this fits in with what the Bible and Nebular theory say!
Before the flood the mountains were not as high, and this is the ancestral mountains.
During the flood, a huge catastrophy produced an upheavel and made the current Himalyas!

Wow!
The Bible is true!

The Himalayas were pushed up over time .. and it took time for India to plow into Afghanistan. And the Himalayas are the youngest mountains. The Alps are also fairly young as are the mountains between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The Rocky mountains are younger than the Catskills and the Smokies.

Are you playing some kind of game or do you really not know anything?

Top 10 Oldest Mountain Ranges On Earth

 

[SA Huguenot]

The Himalayas were pushed up over time .. and it took time for India to plow into Afghanistan. And the Himalayas are the youngest mountains. The Alps are also fairly young as are the mountains between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The Rocky mountains are younger than the Catskills and the Smokies.

Are you playing some kind of game or do you really not know anything?

Top 10 Oldest Mountain Ranges On Earth

So you are a believer in Uniformitarianism.
Any chance that you might allow a small hint of catastrophism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are a believer in Uniformitarianism.
Any chance that you might allow a small hint of catastrophism.

There is no scientific evidence for the flood. That is why no serious scientists believe it. The problem is that you would need far more than just a "hin of catastrophism". You would need almost endless evidence to counter the existing evidence.

For example fossil on top of mountains are evidence against the flood. Not because they are found on top of the mountains, but because they are found all through the mountains and strata everywhere. Not only that they are sorted in a manner that cannot be explained by flood believers.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I work right next to the magaliesberg mountain range.
And to me it is the best example of surface plates that fell in and uplifted the one side of this plate, creating the Magalies berg.
This could not have been formed over millions and millions of years through erosion.
I climbed the ridge a few times, and anyone who tries to tell me that erosion didit, is blind.
The range are not only reaching from east to west, but is repeated in smaller ridges to the North and South showing evidence that the land subdued, and not in a long period of time, but quick.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is no scientific evidence for the flood. That is why no serious scientists believe it. The problem is that you would need far more than just a "hin of catastrophism". You would need almost endless evidence to counter the existing evidence.

For example fossil on top of mountains are evidence against the flood. Not because they are found on top of the mountains, but because they are found all through the mountains and strata everywhere. Not only that they are sorted in a manner that cannot be explained by flood believers.

This is what I also say.
You will fing much marine fossils throughout the Mountains, because the layers of rock are always directional because just as at Mnt St Hellens, these formations was done in a few weeks, not millions of years.
The Drakensberg in South Africa is a good example.
The layers of rock is from the top to the bottom, not layer horisontally, but vertical.
It is evidence that the "Plate of Rock, which was ocean bed, was pushed upright, and is not as result of erosion.
Why so scared to allow any catastrophism as an explanation?
Sounds too Biblical I assume.
Now I remember how the American geological society laughed at J Harlan Bretz when he told them there was a flood of Biblical proportions when he explained the scablands.
Ha, they told him to go and find another answer.

Poor fools, Bretz was correct, they were the fools.
A very "Large flood did create the scablands.
And you hade the thought that catastrophism is not scientific?
Open your mind a bit man!
Think!
Bretz was right, the Geological society was prejudice and bias.
Do you want to be like them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I work right next to the magaliesberg mountain range.
And to me it is the best example of surface plates that fell in and uplifted the one side of this plate, creating the Magalies berg.
This could not have been formed over millions and millions of years through erosion.
I climbed the ridge a few times, and anyone who tries to tell me that erosion didit, is blind.
The range are not only reaching from east to west, but is repeated in smaller ridges to the North and South showing evidence that the land subdued, and not in a long period of time, but quick.

Why could that range not be millions of years old? Did you personally measure the erosion rate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I also say.
You will fing much marine fossils throughout the Mountains, because the layers of rock are always directional because just as at Mnt St Hellens, these formations was done in a few weeks, not millions of years.
The Drakensberg in South Africa is a good example.
The layers of rock is from the top to the bottom, not layer horisontally, but vertical.
It is evidence that the "Plate of Rock, which was ocean bed, was pushed upright, and is not as result of erosion.
Why so scared to allow any catastrophism as an explanation?
Sounds too Biblical I assume.
Now I remember how the American geological society laughed at J Harlan Bretz when he told them there was a flood of Biblical proportions when he explained the scablands.
Ha, they told him to go and find another answer.

Poor fools, Bretz was correct, they were the fools.
A very "Large flood did create the scablands.
And you hade the thought that catastrophism is not scientific?
Open your mind a bit man!
Think!
Bretz was right, the Geological society was prejudice and bias.
Do you want to be like them?

No, we can observe fossils all through beds. And creationists cannot explain their deposition.

 

[SA Huguenot]

There is no scientific evidence for the flood. That is why no serious scientists believe it. The problem is that you would need far more than just a "hin of catastrophism". You would need almost endless evidence to counter the existing evidence.

For example fossil on top of mountains are evidence against the flood. Not because they are found on top of the mountains, but because they are found all through the mountains and strata everywhere. Not only that they are sorted in a manner that cannot be explained by flood believers.

What scientific evidence do you want.
I tell you that the Mountains and oceans were created by this flood. I told you that the Nebular theory would lead to a clobal flood, as Kant prescribed and as science proved him to be correct.
You continue to refer to a flood that must be 5 miles covering the Earth, and I told you this was not what the Bible say!
You claim there was ancient mountains proving it to be billions of years old, and I asked if it could not be as a result of the flood that these mountains came into existance.
It is a fact that the Drakensberg and Magalies were shaped by a catastrophy, and not erosion, yet you dont even want to hear the word Catastrophy, even if the evidene is to be found in the last 3 tsunami's, earth quakes, Vulcano's etc.
Well, the reason why you dont want to hear the word "Catastrophy", is because this is what will force you to admit that the Bible is true, and science agrees to it.

And Atheists calls Christians close minded!

let me show you how I can get your blood to boill!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!
Catastrophy!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Why could that range not be millions of years old? Did you personally measure the erosion rate?

There is no erosion but plates sticking out of the Earth ove 500 meters average, where the tail is subdued in the earth.
It was formed like one playing on a seesaw. What is also seen is that to the south the very same occurs, which means the rock plates was pushed to the south, and the southern points repeatedly lifts out of the earth.
No erosion, and I see a catastrophy!
Catastrophy!