Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

a reply to: cooperton

You believe mountains arose out of the ocean, I believe the ocean raised over the mountains. Just let people believe differently than you without taking it personally.

No, I know, it's not a matter of faithful belief like an impossible flood. Literal mountains of evidence. And I can explain the ongoing Himalayan orogeny with precision. I know how mollusk shells made it above 6000 meters and there is no dispute, it happened via uplift.

But this is on a timescale you are unable to ever incorporate, likely as a rhetorical defence mechanism, so we are just repeating ourselves to see words on a screen.

But I don't want to do the writing myself this time.

www.pmfias.com...

The Himalayas do not comprise a single range but a series of at least three ranges running more or less parallel to one another.

Therefore, the Himalayas are supposed to have emerged out of the Himalayan Geosyncline, i.e. the Tethys Sea in three different phases following one after the other.

The first phase commenced about 50-40 million years ago when the Great Himalayas were formed. The formation of the Great Himalayas was completed about 30 million years ago.

The second phase took place about 25 to 30 million years ago when the Middle Himalayas were formed.

The Shiwaliks were formed in the last phase of the Himalayan orogeny — say about two million to twenty million years ago.

Some of the fossil formations found in the Shiwalik hills are also available in the Tibet plateau. It indicates that the past climate of the Tibet plateau was somewhat similar to the climate of the Shiwalik hills.

Here's an easy to watch video of 'lies' with epic music.

a reply to: Degradation33

It's a theory not a fact. Science is changing all the time. We both know eachother's perspective, just let it be.

a reply to: cooperton
Seashells on top of everest is said to be proof of the flood. But these creatures live in, on or near the ocean floors. Even if the ocean level rises to the height of everest, they are not going to leave their habitat.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Seashells on top of everest is said to be proof of the flood. But these creatures live in, on or near the ocean floors. Even if the ocean level rises to the height of everest, they are not going to leave their habitat.

The eggs of shellfish are often bouyant, so they would have been able to access the higher altitudes of the submersed landscape.

a reply to: cooperton
Yeah, but then you have the problem of the flood not lasting long enough for them to grow to the sizes of the fossils.

So grown shellfish were not going to go and the eggs of something like clams, would have needed 3 to 4 years to grow to a couple of inches.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton
Yeah, but then you have the problem of the flood not lasting long enough for them to grow to the sizes of the fossils.

So grown shellfish were not going to go and the eggs of something like clams, would have needed 3 to 4 years to grow to a couple of inches.

Some of the mud at the surface would have lithified into mudstone once the waters subsided, embedded with various marine fossils.

I hate to be he one breaking it to you all but...Oil is the second most abundant resource after water in this planet and it does not come from fossils. Time to wake the eff up!

a reply to: cooperton
What mud? That amount of water, especially from underneath would have caused massive mudslides, especially on something as steep as everest.

You are really grasping at straws here.

a reply to: cooperton

Fair enough.

Are you okay with this statement interjected when you try to convince others of your theory?

This is a computer-generated message. The preceding arguments have not yet been reviewed by a geologist. The statements and arguments made may be flawed, false, out of context, chronologically invalid, or misinterpret the fundamental characteristics of the evidence in question. It is advised you check these claims for validity with verified sources, such as the USGS.

This statement supersedes any earlier statements on these claims.

I won't actually do that, it would be kinda childish, but I want to. Especially because you consider geoscience a theory, theory it is not.

But I will give it a try, as an act of forcing myself to learn to ignore things.

It's hard. It's like watching Ancient Aliens without yelling at the TV.

The New Age Channel: "That's why Ancient Astronaut Theorists propose they levitated the stones into place..."

Me: "Why the hell do these advanced aliens always build with Bronze Age materials or depict themselves in reliefs moving stones and obelisks with cranes or sleds, which both had assigned hieroglyphs in their language?"

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Fair enough.

Are you okay with this statement interjected when you try to convince others of your theory?

This is a computer-generated message. The preceding arguments have not yet been reviewed by a geologist. The statements and arguments made may be flawed, false, out of context, chronologically invalid, or misinterpret the fundamental characteristics of the evidence in question. It is advised you check these claims for validity with verified sources, such as the USGS.

This statement supersedes any earlier statements on these claims.

Ahh that reminds me of the fact-checking algorithm that was ensuring the covid despotism could perpetuate.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Fair enough.

Are you okay with this statement interjected when you try to convince others of your theory?

This is a computer-generated message. The preceding arguments have not yet been reviewed by a geologist. The statements and arguments made may be flawed, false, out of context, chronologically invalid, or misinterpret the fundamental characteristics of the evidence in question. It is advised you check these claims for validity with verified sources, such as the USGS.

This statement supersedes any earlier statements on these claims.

Ahh that reminds me of the fact-checking algorithm that was ensuring the covid despotism could perpetuate.

There is no global flood.

This is one of the stories in the Bible for which no scientific or historical evidence exists. It's just a made up story like all other stories and claims made.

a reply to: cooperton

What other baseless claims you will make to support creationism?

Like I said in the other thread the God of the old testament is a fictional character together with all the stories about major geological events and various 'miracles'.

88 pages.
The global Noahs Flood myth was completely debunked.
The premise of this thread was debunked back on the first few pages.
Please God make it STOP. End the thread.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
88 pages.
The global Noahs Flood myth was completely debunked.
The premise of this thread was debunked back on the first few pages.
Please God make it STOP. End the thread.

Lol.

This clip seems fitting for Feb, 2nd.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
88 pages.
The global Noahs Flood myth was completely debunked.
The premise of this thread was debunked back on the first few pages.

a reply to: cooperton

It's still been debunked, though.

a reply to: cooperton

Childish mockery doesn't change the truth .. the 'Noahs Flood' has been debunked and so has the premise of this thread.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: cooperton

Childish mockery doesn't change the truth .. the 'Noahs Flood' has been debunked and so has the premise of this thread.

I don't wanna hear it, you 'tattle-taled' on me. So childish. You saying it has been debunked doesn't make it debunked. Koalas eat other food besides eucalyptus, it was proven in various studies that they have a larger variety of diet than previously thought. That and other aspects of your argument were proven to be wrong. Parading around that "it's been debunked" is exactly like the meme above. It even uses caps lock like flyersfan does all the time lol

88 pages and still no deboonk on the presence of water beneath earth's crust
88 pages and still no deboonk on oil being made quickly from high-pressure
88 pages and still no deboonk on large boulders found beyond glacial zones
88 pages and still no deboonk on why cultures are unanimous about the global flood (you never found an Egyptian source that self-dates their dynasties, it is archaeological speculation)

a reply to: cooperton

Are we really back to Koalas again?!!!!!!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: cooperton

Are we really back to Koalas again?!!!!!!

When flyersfan pretends like they debunked it, yeah we have to bring it back up again.