Flood Evidences — revised

[Hockeycowboy]

The Himalayas are one of the world's youngest mountain ranges, at about fifty million years old. Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller.

If the range were that old, we’d observe massive erosion, considering the extreme weathering they endure, from rounded festures to smooth surfaces. “50 myo”, lol.

But what do we see? Crisp & well-defined characteristics, denoting a very youthful range, geologically speaking. Regarding most of the Earth’s high ranges, from the Rockies to the Andes, we observe youthful features....but granted, the rocks from which those features derive, are old.

 

[ppp]

If the range were that old, we’d observe massive erosion, considering the extreme weathering they endure, from rounded festures to smooth surfaces. “50 myo”, lol.

But what do we see? Crisp & well-defined characteristics, denoting a very youthful range, geologically speaking. Regarding most of the Earth’s high ranges, from the Rockies to the Andes, we observe youthful features....but granted, the rocks from which those features derive, are old.

You realize that you are not disputing anything he said? You are arguing against yourself. The Himalayas are the youngest mountain range. Therefore, as you and he said, we observe youthful features.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You realize that you are not disputing anything he said? You are arguing against yourself. The Himalayas are the youngest mountain range. Therefore, as you and he said, we observe youthful features.

50 million years of extreme weathering = youthful features?

Besides, he didn’t say youthful features. But thanks for admitting it.

 

[ppp]

50 million years of extreme weathering = youthful features?

Besides, he didn’t say youthful features. But thanks for admitting it.

Go back and read your post. You said that the characteristics we see are "very youthful". Perhaps you meant to say something else.

 

[Audie]

Go back and read your post. You said that the characteristics we see are "very youthful". Perhaps you meant to say something else.

I wont try to educate anyone who cannot be educated but i noted the line " massive evidence of erosion " that is (lol) not there
for the rockies.

But i actually know a little about it...

During a long field trip we crossed the country
to Wyoming, studying the geology.
We followed the Platte river across Nebraska
as the elevation rose 3,000 ft on outwash from
the rockies.
The mountains themselves are buried up to
their " knees" ( waist?) In their sediments.

 

[paarsurrey]

I wont try to educate anyone who cannot be educated but i noted the line " massive evidence of erosion " that is (lol) not there
for the rockies.

But i actually know a little about it...

During a long field trip we crossed the country
to Wyoming, studying the geology.
We followed the Platte river across Nebraska
as the elevation rose 3,000 ft on outwash from
the rockies.
The mountains themselves are buried up to
their " knees" ( waist?) In their sediments.

Sorry to interrupt here.
Just to inform my friend @Audie that our friend may like to read my post
#1047 in another thread that may not relate here. Please don't mind.

Regards

 

[Audie]

Sorry to interrupt here.
Just to inform my friend @Audie that our friend may like to read my post
#1047 in another thread that may not relate here. Please don't mind.

Regards

Just dont do it again

 

[metis]

In the interests of accuracy, he is Dr. Seok Won Hong, I found out after posting the OP.
But that changes nothing...

The Ark was seaworthy.
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

Using the biblical specs, there's a mock ark that was built in the Netherlands [Amsterdam I believe], and the last time I read is that they won't take it away from the shore because computer models show that it's too unstable even empty.

 

[Sheldon]

The Ark was seaworthy.
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

As I said you have no way of knowing that, since the bible contains no design, that pseudoscience you linked is meaningless, as one would need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability. They also couldn't construct it from Gopher wood either.

As I said, that answer pretty much destroys the pseudoscience you linked, so simply repeating the claim with the link is obviously meaningless, as you have not addressed the refutation at all, not even tried to in fact.

 

[Sheldon]

If the range were that old, we’d observe massive erosion, considering the extreme weathering they endure, from rounded festures to smooth surfaces. “50 myo”, lol.

But what do we see? Crisp & well-defined characteristics, denoting a very youthful range, geologically speaking. Regarding most of the Earth’s high ranges, from the Rockies to the Andes, we observe youthful features....but granted, the rocks from which those features derive, are old.

Yeah I'll go with scientific facts over your risible and unevidenced rhetoric, but thanks for playing anyway. You are simply wrong here.

If the universe is not billions of years old, how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away?

 

[Audie]

As I said you have no way of knowing that, since the bible contains no design, that pseudoscience you linked is meaningless, as one would need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability. They also couldn't construct it from Gopher wood either.

As I said, that answer pretty much destroys the pseudoscience you linked, so simply repeating the claim with the link is obviously meaningless, as you have not addressed the refutation at all, not even tried to in fact.

" floated" and " seaworthy" are not at all the same

 

[Audie]

Yeah I'll go with scientific facts over your risible and unevidenced rhetoric, but thanks for playing anyway. You are simply wrong here.

If the universe is not billions of years old, how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away?

The wacky idea that the more the erosion,
the smoother the contours so easily shown to be incorrect, you have to wonder how even a
creationist can believe it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As I said you have no way of knowing that, since the bible contains no design, that pseudoscience you linked is meaningless, as one would need to know a great deal more than the length, width and height to assess stability. They also couldn't construct it from Gopher wood either.

As I said, that answer pretty much destroys the pseudoscience you linked, so simply repeating the claim with the link is obviously meaningless, as you have not addressed the refutation at all, not even tried to in fact.

‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

 

[metis]

The Genesis Flood narrative probably was mainly a rebuttal of the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian flood account, thus is most likely a rejection of the latter's religious beliefs. The Flood story taken at the literalistic level makes no sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

" floated" and " seaworthy" are not at all the same

We have been over this. All the article says for you is that ark with only 35,000 species. would float. So what? Even though it is not a scientific paper it says nothing about the seaworthiness of such a craft, nor does it reflect the fully loaded weight of craft with food and water for all of those animals for over a year. In case you did not know the water that the ark floated in would not be potable. The problem with the Ark is not whether it could float or not in totally calm waters. The problem is how it could possibly weather the worst storm in the history of the world by several orders of magnitude. And that is only a small part of the evidence against the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the range were that old, we’d observe massive erosion, considering the extreme weathering they endure, from rounded festures to smooth surfaces. “50 myo”, lol.

But what do we see? Crisp & well-defined characteristics, denoting a very youthful range, geologically speaking. Regarding most of the Earth’s high ranges, from the Rockies to the Andes, we observe youthful features....but granted, the rocks from which those features derive, are old.

The Himalayas display that extreme weathering. What do you think that it would look like? Mountains of the Himalayan sort do not just pop in the form that we see them today. The Himalayas are the result of the collision of the Indian plate with the Eurasian plate. They are a result of the erosion of the uplift caused by that collision. And it is still going on today. The Indian plate is still moving roughly north at 5 cm a year. As a result the Himalayas are still going up. Not very quickly, but their upward growth does exceed their present rate of erosions.
Geology of the Himalayan Mountains

In other words the Himalayans are an active mountain range. And the sharp peaks are what one would expect from a mountain range that is still growing. If you want to see what the Himalayas will look like when they are old go check out the Appalachian Mountains. They are about 480 million years old. In comparison the 52 million years of the Himalayas make them teenagers that most.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Genesis Flood narrative probably was mainly a rebuttal of the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian flood account, thus is most likely a rejection of the latter's religious beliefs. The Flood story taken at the literalistic level makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, in light of Genesis 6:1-4, which were “the angels that sinned”(2 Peter 2:4), the ones who “forsook their proper dwelling place” Jude 1:6.

it was necessary for it to be global.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, but it isn’t….
It doesn’t grow from the top (if it did, you’d have a point.)
It grows from its base. So it’s top features are unaltered.
IOW, 50 million years of extreme weathering, if true, would result in much smoother, rounded characteristics.
And we don’t see it to that degree.

 

[KWED]

The Ark was seaworthy.
‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

That article states that "the Ark" might have been able to support 35,000 species. Unfortunately for the apologist, there are several million species of animal on earth. Where did the other millions of species come from?

 

[KWED]

If the range were that old, we’d observe massive erosion, considering the extreme weathering they endure, from rounded festures to smooth surfaces. “50 myo”, lol.

But what do we see? Crisp & well-defined characteristics, denoting a very youthful range, geologically speaking. Regarding most of the Earth’s high ranges, from the Rockies to the Andes, we observe youthful features....but granted, the rocks from which those features derive, are old.

From a Cornell University study of the Himalayas - "Erosion rates are very high".
Or a paper in Nature Geosceince - "Steady erosion rates in the Himalayas through late Cenozoic climatic changes"
A paper by Santa Barbara Uni - "The Himalayas were chosen because of their unique combination of massive topography, monsoon rains, and rapid erosion."