But all the megasequences along with all other four billion years of geology apart from 1656 years happened during 190 days.
O.k., it was during the Zuni megasequence, which more narrowly centers around 115 mya.
Yes but when was that in the 190 (or is it 40 or is it 150?) days 4370 years ago. Which day?
…
I mean it started on the 17th of Iyar, yeah? Late April early May. Gimme till tomorrow and I’ll come up with your day. You happen to know exactly when Iyar the 17th was in the Gregorian 2348 BCE?
…
I’m getting in to this now. So the oldest rocks date from 4.031 ±0.003 ga, but that’s really October 4004 BCE yeah? A million times more recent. But all the extinction event sediments happened from May Day 2348 BCE when the mid-ocean ridges started moving out at the unimaginable speed of 10 km a year, 3 cm a day!!! The fountains of the deep and all that and the rain that obviously came down from one of the celestial spheres, or whatever, the firmament between and above and below the firmaments. As in counting before you throw the Holy Hand Grenade. Which is where pomegranate comes form. That’s a billion cubic miles of water to cover Ararat. Wowwwwwwwww.
Because Jesus right? And NOT! The really real science is real prior to Jesus.
Now the Ordovician-Silurian extinction events of only real science started 450 mya. So is that May Day 2348 BCE? Or the lesser extinctions of the previous hundred million years? You know 542 mya? I suppose it must be. The day it started raining. There’s a brilliant Ray Bradbury short story. But I digress. And if the 40 days and nights of rain are included in the 150 days, then 542 million years = 150 days. That’s a billion days a day. Four million years a day. And the Sauk Sea formed about 515 mya. So. Thirty million years = a week. So the Sauk Sea formed in a day at the end of the first week of May 2348 BCE.
Don’t you agree? In really real because Jesus geology?
And the Zuni was laid down after a month. June 2348. Gotta be, yeah?
Wow, I had no idea you could do all of geology on the back of an envelope with really real science.
Throughout, you have been arguing that animals buried by a flood cannot be fossilized, but the animals buried by a flood can be fossilized, and that animals buried by sediment cannot be fossilized, but animals buried by sediment can be fossilized. The only difference is your preferred flood occurred during the early kingdom of Egypt, and is of a scale contradicted by both large and micro fossils…
6 Likes
Another one is that I am not going to answer all of your questions. But you can start your homework here:
The ocean floor of the Pacific Ocean is composed of nine oceanic tectonic plates…
Geology of the Pacific Ocean - Wikipedia
Another observation… this applies (it has to do with red herrings):
Whataboutism
As does this:
Brandolini’s law
(Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times* the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.)
*ETA: I’m sure that’s low – just look at all the manhours that have been expended in this thread.
1 Like
Are there any YECs out there that would care to try to put this into a young earth explanation? (It is also relevant to whale bone fossilization.) Of the many times I have posted it (including twice before in this thread), not one YEC has ever addressed it:
Girdled rocks
(Bonus points if you recognize one of my favorite words in it. ; - )
The 401st . . .
Again…“hides itself” is a figure of speech!
James, Peter is using a figure of speech–specifically, personification–when he says that the evidence is “hiding itself” from mockers. He is saying that because of their defiant attitude towards God, it is as if the evidence were “hiding behind the trees.” It’s there, but they can’t see it.
But it’s not because evidence literally has a mind and is trying to hide itself. Rather, what is literally happening is that mockers are blinding themselves to the evidence–blinding themselves by their stubborn refusal to see clear evidence, here, of the Flood.
And, there are many cases, throughout the Bible, of this happening. Remember when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11)? The mockers (Jewish leaders) here even admitted He had done so. Yet, rather than accept this clear evidence that Jesus was the Son of God, they chose to try to destroy the evidence…by killing Lazarus!
So, the deeper lesson–and warning–here is, we must always have an honest attitude toward evidence…we must always love the truth, no matter where it takes us. Otherwise, such evidence will–figuratively!–“hide itself” from us. It will be right before our eyes, but because of our resistant wills, we will never see it.
I agree.
But even if what I believe to be evidence of the Flood proves not to be factual, you also must recognize that Peter is indeed affirming that evidence of a world-destroying Flood does exist.
So, you guys who are the professional scientists should be helping the rest of us discover this evidence. Again, Peter–by guidance of the Holy Spirit–says that evidence of this Flood does exist. And it can, and should, be discovered (in fact, Peter, here, connects rejection of the historical Flood with rejection of the coming Christ, to judge the world).
So, even if you insist I am “all-wet” (pun intended) on what this evidence is, you should be pointing ME to what the actual evidence of the world-destroying Flood is, all around us. So, James, what is the evidence?
Yet, it seems–at least in this thread–all of you scientists are doing the very opposite. Not only are you dismissing what I believe to be the evidence, but you are also trying to prove there is no evidence at all…contrary to what Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ–guided by the Holy Spirit–says here.
I can’t solve this for you.
But I do know that sequence stratigraphy–from direct study of data from the sedimentary rock record (the fossil record, of course)–says these sediments were indeed “deposited” by “transgressing” or “regressing” ocean flows.
Have you studied the Sloss sequences? They clearly speak of depositional periods–of sediments whose source was not local (though terrigenous sediments were often mixed in), but instead from the ocean environment (sand to form sandstone from the beach area, clay to form shale from shallow marine area, and calcium carbonate to form limestone, from deeper marine waters).
In fact, the order in which these sediment layers were deposited reflects whether the depositing waters were transgressive or regressive.
Sequence stratigraphy says otherwise.
Yes, much “sediment washed off of the continents”–but into the ocean, from which it was then transported by flooding ocean waters back onto the craton.
What evidence for a world-destroying flood would a contemporary of St. Peter be able to see?
3 Likes
Completely agreed. Over five million years. Not last Wednesday.
1 Like
I googled it, and it does say so in John 12 9-11. Not something I remembered from Sunday School.
2 Likes
OK then
1 Like
Now, I was talking about the sediments that ended up forming the sedimentary rock layers we find in the fossil record. Is this what you are referring to here?
If so, then it is not true that these sediments are “unsorted.” To the contrary, as they were deposited in the transgressive flow, there was a fining-up of sediments, so that distinct layers of limestone on top of shale on top of sandstone are found in discrete “packages” (bounded above and below by erosion zones, called “unconformities”). And, in the regressive flows, the sediments were again sorted into distinct, “coarsening up” layers.
This is what sequence stratigraphy is telling us, from the actual rock record.
Yes, this is my point. Transgressing flood waters moving across the continents at only 1/4 inch per year, do not have the hydrodynamic power to work the kind of erosion caused by the Sauk transgression. Therefore, we know it did not creep along . Instead, this kind of erosion was the result of the kind of hydrodynamics seen in hurricanes and flooding rivers.
“But don’t you see, even this evidence “hides itself” from atheists. It’s evidence that is very clear to see by those of us who aren’t bent upon mocking God; but it’s evidence that is completely lost to those who are set upon mocking and ridiculing God.”
This claim doesn’t make a lick of sense. Have you any evidence for this? I’m an atheist. If you and I stood together at the rim of the Grand Canyon, would we see the same thing?
You described the scientific method perfectly. Why do you abandon it by starting with biblical conclusions?