It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by MrXYZ
SMALL stones being rolled around, yes.
Large ones, No.
As to moving glaciers----how about those round stones where there were no glaciers?
And pray tell, how do glaciers move across more or less LEVEL ground?
The moving glacier theory is illogical.
Originally posted by OhZone
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
You want evidence mad Darwin?
There is evidence all over the world.
Doesn't do much for Noah and his boat load of animals, but does show that there was a huge catastrophe with a lot of water involved. And that the "ice age" came after, not before.
Um...where is the sedimentary evidence
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There would be geologic evidence in the strata, but it is not found. Where is the evidence of a mass extermination of humans and animals alike that a massive flood would entail? We would have genetic evidence based upon how few humans would have survived such an event, but it is not there.
So the point cannot be held up by boulders alone.
There is no evidence in the geologic strata that would follow the mechanics of how flood sedimentation works. We'd have a unified, global 'flood boundary' similar to how we have the KT boundary in the geologic record.
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
So the point cannot be held up by boulders alone.
I find it interesting that this discussion goes from "no evidence" or "zero evidence" to your above comment.
Those boulders would have to travel a large distance, at great speed. The forces that moved these sediments were incredible.
There is no evidence in the geologic strata that would follow the mechanics of how flood sedimentation works. We'd have a unified, global 'flood boundary' similar to how we have the KT boundary in the geologic record.
So you have researched this?
Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?
A global cataclysm would not be static, but dynamic by it's very nature. A global flood would produce different results in different parts on the earth. The climate and geology would effect the results.
If I took a fire hose to my yard, the water pressure would create different features in different places based on the amount of clay, sand and rock under the topsoil. Not to mention if I did this in the middle of winter vs. summer.
Localized wind, flooding and glaciers would cause erosion and change sedimentation afterward.
Some of what remains is surface planation,
sheared mountain tops and seamounts,
as well as large round sediments left in the middle of prairies that offer support of a global cataclysm.
More sedimentary and fossil evidence may be found at the lowest point of our planet.
Oceanographers have barely scratched the surface of what is in the depths of the ocean.
I'm not acknowledging the boulders, they aren't evidence of a global cataclysm. There is still zero evidence.
"Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?"
No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly.
“By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell’s rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form.
Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.”[24]
Thus the current scientific consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[32] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions.
This is also known as the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action.
The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology. [edit] See also
They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.
I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.
Tex5He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever. 6Thou hadst covered it with the deep, as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains: 7At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away; -- 8The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; -- 9Thou hast set a bound which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth. t
We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly. It cannot cause sorted layers of sedimentation that have an evolutionarily chronological sorting of fossils.
Some of what remains is surface planation,
How is that caused by a flood?
Um...why would the evidence be found at the bottom of the ocean rather than everywhere on the planet?
Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
I'm not acknowledging the boulders, they aren't evidence of a global cataclysm. There is still zero evidence.
It's a good thing that boulders don't have feelings. They might be offended that the you don't acknowledge them.
You don't have to agree with the evidence.
"Have scientists made a serious study of the effects of a global flood, using modern technology and submitting it to peer review?"
No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly.
With that statement you lose credibility.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, not directly in an overarching study like that. However, there has been no reason to do that because the hypothesis is silly. Instead they have studied geology and found that the currently accepted model is the best explanation, that is a model that excludes a global flood.
They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.
I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.
That attitude was the reason J Harlen Bretz and his work were initially discredited.
“By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell’s rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form.
Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes.”[24]
Thus the current scientific consensus is that Earth's history is a slow, gradual process punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events that have affected Earth and its inhabitants.[32] In practice it is reduced from Lyell's conflation to simply the two philosophical assumptions.
This is also known as the principle of actualism (geology), which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action.
The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology. [edit] See also
Uniformitarianism
They have found no evidence of global flood sedimentation (there is an immense understanding in the geologic community of how flood sedimentation occurs and how it would occur), no evidence of uniform global erosion, and no evidence that there could possibly have been enough water for a global flood.
You already stated that "they" aren't looking.
Erosion would not be uniform.
We already debated the "not enough water" thing.
There is enough water to cover the earth.
I mean, I've already brought forth the proper objection to the very concept of a flooded globe: If there was enough water to cover a system uniformly then that system would remain covered indefinitely.
Tex5He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever. 6Thou hadst covered it with the deep, as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains: 7At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away; -- 8The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them; -- 9Thou hast set a bound which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth. t
Psalms 104
The sea floor sinks and the mountains rise.
Sounds like Plate Tectonics to me.
The retreating flood waters create additional formations.
We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly. It cannot cause sorted layers of sedimentation that have an evolutionarily chronological sorting of fossils.
Some of what remains is surface planation,
How is that caused by a flood?
The retreating water created a sheet wash which produced surface planation.
Um...why would the evidence be found at the bottom of the ocean rather than everywhere on the planet?
Retreating flood waters would wash much of the sediment into the ocean.
Whale fossils high in Andes
The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years.
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
is this a topic in which Atheistic Darwinist get to bash Creation theory Theists ?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactbut that sort of thing does not go on around here right ?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifacthumm when was this topic started ?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactcan I get in on some of this action ?
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifactgotta love a fair and balanced open-minded discussion !
Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact4 question marks only, anyone care to address ? oops that's 5 question marks sorry
And with quote-mining me you lose credibility. You took a single sentence out of a paragraph and took a single paragraph out of three in response to a statement.
No, the lack of evidence in support of his hypothesis was the reason he was discredited. It was later vindicated by evidence which arose through further study. Science has no compulsion to accept hypotheses in the face of absent evidence confirming their claims.
The Geological Society of Washington, D.C invited the young Bretz to present his previously published research at a January 12, 1927 meeting where several other geologists presented competing theories. Bretz saw this as an ambush, and referred to the group as six challenging elders. Their intention was to defeat him in a public debate, and thus end the challenge his theories posed to the long standing uniformitarianism dogma
Or it was produced by glacial movements (which you don't seem to accept), a much more likely and highly supported theory.
Planation is a geomorphic process which creates nearly flat surfaces by fluvial (river), eolian (wind) and marine processes. The process is erosional and takes millions of years, and its legacy from the tertiary period (65-2Ma) is present in many of today's landscapes. It has been studied since the 1890's but many fundamental questions remain about this process.
The February 27, 2010, Chilean tsunami substantially altered the coastal landscape and left a permanent depositional record that may be preserved at many locales along the central coast of Chile. From April 24 to May 2, 2010, a team of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Chilean scientists examined the geological impacts of the tsunami at five sites along a 200-km segment of coast centered on the earthquake epicenter. Significant observations include: (1) substantial tsunami-induced erosion and deposition (±1 m) on the coastal plain; (2) erosion from return flow, inundation scour around the bases of trees, and widespread planation of the land surface;
"The rare assemblage of fossils, recovered on an expedition by the American Museum of Natural History to a remote plateau in southern Chile, is expected not only to illuminate an obscure epoch of animal evolution but also to document the rise of the Andes mountains in the past 15 million years".
Might want to actually read the article before citing it.
.
We would find evidence that nearly everything died due to a flood, we don't. And don't bring up fossils, fossilization cannot occur in that manner that rapidly
sediment image sea bottom image The sediment sample at left shows evidence of mass extinction, says MU geologist Ken MacLeod. Below the unique band in the middle, life was abundant in the form of microfossils (shown above). In the band, which represents the time after a giant meteorite hit Earth, life is much more scarce. Related Links * Department of Geological Sciences * Join Mizzou on Facebook