:chuckle: You're no Fool....I don't even know all the questions.
Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
laughsoutloud
New member
No, he tries to make the case. I showed how it failed with liquafaction. You have to get down to cases.
laughsoutloud
New member
Stipe,
floods also leave a deposit - which did not happen, so no global flood.
The idea that you can't rule out a flood without knowing exactly what happened - consider an alibi - we know things inconsistent with a global flood, so that idea can safely be abandoned, even if we don't know every little detail of what did happen.
floods also leave a deposit - which did not happen, so no global flood.
The idea that you can't rule out a flood without knowing exactly what happened - consider an alibi - we know things inconsistent with a global flood, so that idea can safely be abandoned, even if we don't know every little detail of what did happen.
laughsoutloud
New member
Stipe writes:
No, looks like lots of this is mixed with ash - evidence of a global fire... need another explanation, and flod ain't it.
I do not think you understand enough about what a global flood might do in order to dismiss the idea.
How about you show us why we should believe a single asteroid or multiple asteroids wiped out the dinos?
I'm sorry, what?
laughsoutloud - The entire planet is covered in sedimentary deposits which formed under water.
Methinks you have your head in the sand.
:think: Hmmm.... I have read the book three times and you haven't read it once, so I think I will trust my own judgment over yours, but thanks. :thumb:
Stipe, that's just not true. First of all, many sedimentary deposits are clearly non-marine in origin. In fact, if you visit the American Southwest, you can see it happening even today, and the nature of the grains of sand that are eroded away due to wind is clearly different than those created by moving water. By microscopically examining the particles making up different sedimentary layers it's quite apparent which is which.
Secondly, your statement would get quite a chuckle out of those living in the Adirondacks - High Peaks (igneos) or Lowlands (metamorphic).
I haven't read it. Does he explain why liquification would sort repeating layers? For instance, going down into the Grand Canyon, one encounters repeating layers of limestone, sandstone and three distinct layers of shale at different depths. Does his model of liquification explain why a repeating pattern of layers with different densities, particle sizes and hardnesses would occur?
First - To make a sand-dunes into rock still requires water.
Second - Metamorphic rock was once sedimentary.
Yes. It explains all of that in detail. Walt Brown is no dummy.
The book is nearing it's 8th edition (I believe). It's his life work.
Oh and... "liquefaction" is a very real phenomenon that happens all the time (especially in earthquakes and floods). Dr. Brown simply digs deeper into the larger picture of why things are the way they are all over the world. Walt Brown didn't event the term Liquefaction nor it's qualities.
True, but layers and layers of it may never have had their surfaces exposed to water.
Once again Stipe, you demonstrate your ignorance.
Since you've read it and I haven't, perhaps you can paraphrase his explanations?
Yes, I know. I have encountered quicksand, both wet and dry.
Oh, well since you spelled it wrong and questioned liquefaction's effects I assumed you didn't know what it was. I stand corrected.
Wouldn't it be easier for you to read it yourself? :idunno:
laughsoutloud
New member
Yes he explains it in detail, but his explanation does not "explain" why we find creatures grouped by species, and associated with particular plants, if there was a single ecosystem catastrophically inundated in a global flood.
Probably not - I've read through it and do not see where it addresses my questions.
You are wrong he addresses that directly. In fact I just re-read that part.
Please, lets not discuss this any further because you haven't read it, so it's a huge waste of time to argue with you about it.
laughsoutloud
New member
Stipe writes:
You say that the standard model could not account for salt water under mountains. The standard model suggests that India (an island at the time) crashed into Asia, pushing up the Himalayas. Seems reasonable that saltwater beneath the Tibetan Plateau could be trapped in that process. This simply doesn't prove creationism.
What Brown does is try to present a convincing explanation of how a global flood could have happened. This is not the same thing as accounting for all the facts, and ruling out what could not have happened. For example, the distribution of plants and animals in a global flood - there is simply no mechanism that could account for the distribution we find.
No, I am saying that the distribution of plants and animals do not fit with the model of a single, catastrophic, global flood. There is no mechanism to account for the distribution of animals and plants that we find when we go looking. It is not a tenuous argument, it is a pretty significant issue, which Brown does not explain.
You say that the standard model could not account for salt water under mountains. The standard model suggests that India (an island at the time) crashed into Asia, pushing up the Himalayas. Seems reasonable that saltwater beneath the Tibetan Plateau could be trapped in that process. This simply doesn't prove creationism.
What Brown does is try to present a convincing explanation of how a global flood could have happened. This is not the same thing as accounting for all the facts, and ruling out what could not have happened. For example, the distribution of plants and animals in a global flood - there is simply no mechanism that could account for the distribution we find.