Sorry Iwas trying to say, water under pressure released from dams has cut through rock, but something on the scale of the grand Canyon would mean there had to be alot of water under pressure. Nothing is impossible if its within natural reasoning...
The Earth doesnt have to have a uniform layer of sediments...there was no even distribution, look at the dover cliffs of England, etc. The area of the Grand Canyon could have been cut out after the flood, after the water had went down, water could have been trapped upstream and when it broke through, it possibly cut out the canyon in the soft sedimentary material, before it became stone...Thats just to say, the canyon was not solid when it was cut out. But water released from dams have cutrock
17) there are many more things that i can go on and on about but either you probably dont care. however, i hope that i have shed some new light on your viewpoint of creationsts views. you might not belive in creation, but atleast you might be more informed on the topic. i encorage you to really study the topic. i by no means know everything or explain it most correctly. there are many people out there more qualified than me and could help you out if you really wanted to learn me. thanks. =D
16) i know your trying to prove a point but dont put words in creationists mouth. there are many scientifical phenomenons that explain how the flood caused the grandcanyon among other things such as the fossil record. liquifaction, stratification, cavitation, hydrologic sorting etc. if you want an honest opinion and a factualy sound argument, get the research correct before making a statement about your opponets view. your very uninformed on the topic. contd on netx post.
15) you said there is no place for the sediments to come from exceptthe mountains. the last i remember. there are huge gaps in the earths crust called oceans. i assume alot of the sediments of the earth were removed from the "oceans" when the fountains of the deep broke open during the flood. when the flood water came from the depth of the earth, it pushed away the sediments and it widened the oceans gretly. this sediment was free to move through the flood waters there after. (contd next psot)
@Kezazah '' there are huge gaps in the earths crust called oceans. '' That's funny. Did you ever think there might be dirt [an oceanic plate] under the oceans?
14) the rock formations you showed actually show major erosion. i dont see the logic behind denying it was caused by water erosion. wind erosion would be evenly distrbited and cause a "symmetrical" erosion for lack of a better word. the strange circular picture you showed, illustrated that a massive stream of water flowed near it quickly eroding the bottom edge of it and not the top. contd on next post.
13) your continued point of rain casuing erosion or flood or wateever is not true. if it rained enough to cover the world with water. the earth would literally cook. its called the latent heat of condensation. when water apor forms into water particles it releases heat. the heat generated from a "gloabl rain" produced flood would be geophysically impossible. reread genesis and pay attenion to the details. the majorit of the water came from the depth of the earth. contd next post
12) i agree there are many fossile in the layers. however do you know how fossile are formed? keep in mind no fossile are being implmented in todays earth. to form a fossi the specimen needs to be buried alive or shortly after death, far enough under ground to be out of the presence of oxygen. this preserves the fosile and will fosilize when the dirt becomes stone after several years. a global flood would bury millions of animals quickly and under lots of water. (cont next post)
11) there is also a big problem with the multiple ages theory for the layers. during excavation of fossiles and digging for coal and etc. there are prtrified tree standing upright through the layers that are "millions of years old" they are sometimes upside down. through multiple layers. i honestly would like to know how you explain this. these trees are called polystrata fossiles i belive, look em up. cont on next post.
10) your saying that these layers are not the result of a flood, then what are they? i assume you will say millions of year. however, how do you know they are milliions of years old? you will probably say that you determine it by index fossiles. however, how do you know how old the fossiles are? you determine the fossiles by what layer they are in and by the evolutionary theory. its circular reasoing. in fact, none of the layers are even radioactively dated. contd next post
@Kezazah A flood does not make what we find in nature, distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. Floods don't make ash layers, corals, chalk or limestone.
9) im assuming you belive the colorado river formed the grand canyon, besides the geophysical impliscations and impossiblities i mentioned earlier, it aslo has another porblem. every river has a delta. if the colorado river formed the grand canyon and washed away ALLLL those sediments, we should expect to find a sizable delta. instead, not delta is at all found. this conforms to the idea that the grandcanyon was the result of a spillway, not erosion of a river. contd next post.
@Kezazah What made the Colorado Plateau? Look at what the water cut, 5000 feet of sediments that got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Some are corals, some are wind blown sand!
8) as someone posted that the coaldeposits are evidence that the biomass could not produce the coal seams in one "era" is based on uniformitainism. you assume that the same ammount of plants and land mass are availble today as it was in geneis. when in fact in genesis, there was much more land mass and plants. the flood has made much of the land mass unaccessable or eroded, or uninhabitbale. also, more oxygen present in the atmosphere would cause greater ammount of plants and size. cont next pst
6) your experiment about the water eroding the limestone is fallacious. limestone is a rock and a glass of water is not going to erode it. the flood was massive amounts of water for almost a year and had much debris in it that sped up erosion greatly.
7) every "rock layer" in the "geologic column" is a sedimentary rock. sedimentary rocks are formed by layers from water. i.e a flood is a logical reason for the stratification. ... contd. on next post.
5) the mountains you mention that have little or no erosion is surprising. i didnt know that, however that actually helps out the creationist. if you read genesis carefully, it says the mountains arose in the last days of the flood. just about when the waters were receding. therefore, we should expect the mountains would have little erosion because they werent there for the majority of the flood. contd on next post.
3) the colorado river you claim carved the grand canyon is geophysically imposible. the river enters the canyon 4000-6000 ft below the top of the canyon. if the river was level to its entrance into the canyon, it could not carve the 6000 ft above it.
4) the flood was not only 40 days. thats a common misconception. if you read genesis carefully the flood was nearly a year long event. it rained for 40 days, the flood was much longer. ... contd on next post.
these lakes "followed the path of least resistance" and caused a gash on one side of the lake and flowed down into the now present colordo river channel. The beaches and channels are still present today. secondly, the ground was not solid rock at this time. it was shortly after the flood. it was relativly just dirt. also, the grand canyon was caused as the result of a spillway from massive lakes, not aflood. we can see effect even today in modern events. .. contd. on next post.
first off im a creationists. there are many flaws in your theory that i think you have been not fully enformed on by an educated creationist.
1) the 40 days of rain did not cause the flood. yes, it rained but most of it came from inside the earth. go reread genesis.
2) grand canyon was not formed from the flood or rain, nor was it cut from solid rock. there were 2 previous massive lakes near present day grand canyon. these lakes called hopi lake and grand lake overflowed ... contd on next post
If you are brave, I suggest you Google "creation flood models" and read what Chadwick says on the subject.
Your arguments against the worldwide flood don't deal with actual models of the flood. So, if you really want to be convincing you will have to leave your comfort zone and read some creationist literature that isn't written on the popular level.
BTW, the water that covered the earth came from two sources. Rain was one. See Gen. 7.11; 8.2 for the other. That water wasn't stagnant.
@MorganMarvinson Are you kidding? You expect me to address every model of the flood ever postulated? These are very basic concepts which are relevant to every model, such as why there is a mile of sediment on the Colorado Plateau and almost none on the Canadian Shield, where the sediment came from, and why it would form layers at all. Hint: the grains aren't ordered by size, as creationists so often posit.
@MorganMarvinson Neither you nor any other creationist on here has actually addressed my points; you just send me off to read another interminably long, utterly flawed, non-peer-reviewed article written by someone who isn't a specialist in the field and expect me to address it, which would require an entire series of its own. Until you address the basic flaws I pointed out in my videos, I'm not going to waste my time refuting more complex hypothoses which also ignore those issues.
@diagoras54 I sent you to a single article that you could easily read. Your arguments are only strawmen unless you understand real flood models. If you do understand real flood models and this is what you put up as problems, then you are being dishonestly setting up strawmen. I didn't take it that you were being dishonest. I have given you the chance to evaluate real flood models and then see if you still have the same questions.
It's up to you whether you are brave enough to do this.
@MorganMarvinson I sincerely apologize if the video I made well over a year ago didn't directly address the points made in a single article given to me two days ago. It's not a strawman just because your article makes no mention of these issues; 95% of the models I've ever been presented with - including five found in as many minutes on AiG - state that all the Earth's sedimentary rock was laid down during the flood, and that it could only have done so to such an extent during a global deluge.
@diagoras54 Once more, they, and you, have failed to address why these sediments would pile so high on the Colorado Plateau, but not on the Canadian Shield. I've read their articles in full, but never found this disparity explained. This is an extremely basic concept, and a universal one at that. I really don't care what your personal opinion is; it's as though someone were to enter your house and begin accosting you over a political issue in which you had only mild interest.
@diagoras54 Until you've addressed the most fundamental of problems, which affect all flood models, then there's no reason to even consider the specific details of the varying and disparate hypothoses. For that matter, if you aren't actually going to address the points I made in my video, then there's really no reason for you to post on it. That said, I don't see any point in discussing anything with you until you actually critique my arguments.
@diagoras54 You cannot be judged in a year-old video for things you did not know. That is why I pointed you to what you did not know. If you read the article and learn why you have oversimplified the process of sedimentation, but still leave the video up as representing flood models, then it will be a genuine strawman.
At present it offers unwitting strawman arguments. You did not know a year ago what you will know after reading the article.
@MorganMarvinson You truly are an idiot. I AM ADDRESSING POINTS IN OTHER ARTICLES THAT HAVE EQUALLY VALID MODELS WHICH ARE EQUALLY UNTESTED. And here's a little gem from Chadwick: "Powerful marine currents rush across the submerged landforms, distributing sediment and organisms across the continents..." So where, exactly, does he explain the uneven distribution of sedimentary rock? I read nothing about that. Your beloved article doesn't explain a single point raised in my video. Moron.
@diagoras54 It isn't a single bathtub of water with one set of currents, yet the maps of currents which Chadwick has compiled show precisely what he describes. Distribution maps show a strong correlation between the deposition in the Grand Canyon and other locations.
I realize you have your ego tied up in your arguments, so it is difficult to acknowledge other data and a different paradigm of explanation.
@MorganMarvinson "Issues remain?" Oh you mean all the salt deposits and anhydrites that directley contradict a global flood? Or is it the varves? Or better yet the biomass indicated by the fossils. How about the chemical composition of some of the formations? Yes, these are all issues that confront, and defeat the YECer and the Genesis Literalist. And that's just geology.
@NorthForkFisherman Hats off to you! I've never even looked at these issues (except the varves), so, no, these weren't the issues to which I was referring.
@MorganMarvinson There's a huge amount of data that can be covered. You could take just one slice of geology, say igneous formations, and by calculating their volume, the temperature they form at, and rates of cooling as determined by crystallization and show, one that the earth is much older than 6k years, and two, that a Noachian Flood never happened. Same goes for meteor impacts in the rock record.
@diagoras54 "BTW, the water that covered the earth came from two sources. Rain was one. See Gen. 7.11; 8.2 for the other. That water wasn't stagnant."
@MorganMarvinson Except that no one's ever found these fountains, or evidence for their existence (and the mid-ocean ridges are volcanic, not aquatic). It still has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on where the sediment came from, unless you're of the opinion that the water rapidly eroded miles of the Earth's crust as it rushed out, without leaving gaping holes, and, as I've repeatedly said, doesn't tell why some places have a mile of sedimentary rock, and some have none.
By the way, I apologize for the insults of other Creationists. No matter how strongly a Christian feels about his beliefs, he or she has no right to insult other people--even if insulted first.
"But we don't" Simplistic views of a giant bathtub fall far short of postulated flood models. There are enormous areas where strata does indeed lay down for miles on end without erosion between layers. The millions of years scenario makes no sense of these formations. In fact, it makes no sense of the strata in the Grand Canyon. Flat flat layers extending as far as the eye can see. This was done at one time, not little bit by little bit.
But, if you want to close your eyes to the evidence ...
@MorganMarvinson How does it make "no sense"? The strata were laid down under the sea, where erosion is minimal, which is precisely one of the points I made in the video. But, if you want to close your eyes to the video you're watching...
@MorganMarvinson Unless, of course, there were something that could cause sediment to flow in one direction. Too bad there's nothing like a current or river outlet that would ever do so...
@MorganMarvinson You quote-mining moron. Note how I said "river outlet", as in the point at which a river lets out into the ocean, and, thus slowing, deposits its silt in what's known as a delta. In some places, this can even be quite large, and form a broad alluvial plain on the bottom of the ocean. I'm seriously beginning to question your cognitive functioning.
@MorganMarvinson Yes, and you quote-mined it to get "river" in place of "ocean". Your arrogance in assuming, first, that I'm making a strawman because I'm not addressing your particular article, and second, that you know what I have in mind for myself, or more incredibly, that you know god's mind, is simply staggering. I certainly hope you don't return.
One point, you have apparently missed: I did not accuse you of making a strawman. What I did was to note that you are unaware of issues THAT WOULD MAKE your arguments strawmen if you knew them. To remedy the lack of awareness and to keep the amount of your research to a minimum, I suggested a single article. However, the article is not and cannot be exhaustive.
I will hold you accountable when I know that you ARE accountable--when you demonstrate awareness of flood models.
People believe in the flood because one time there was a flood in iraq. SInce christians still believe iraq is the entire planet, they think there was a worldwide flood. End of story.
Well let's see. You got the creationist's claims wrong. You got the geologist's claims wrong. Wow, you get 100%. That 's an A. I like this new society. Everyone gets a trophy.
@mejc2 Please clarify. Obviously you're much more familiar with everything than I am, so explain how I failed to comprehend the geology. Also, when did the creationists create a single, overarching canon of their beliefs? Or are you familiar with the claims of each individual creationist on Earth?
@mejc2 When I read posts like this, my first reaction is that you're arrogant and presumptuous, and because you made no specific points, you probably are no more familiar with the subject matter than what you've seen in a Kent Hovind video.
@mejc2 Don't bother you anymore? You came on my video and told me that I'm wrong, without any evidence whatsoever, you moron. If you came into my house and slapped me, you wouldn't get to decide that I'm not allowed to bother you anymore, and it's no different because we're on the internet. If you have a point to make, make it. If you can't defend your idiotic statements, you shouldn't have made them in the first place.
You've provided me two sources: one was quote-mined, and refutes your own hypothosis; the other is, by its own definition, creationist. It's rather difficult of me to dismiss your sources because they're creationist when you've only provided one source, which is creationist. You're putting words in my mouth, and I'm sick of it; if you refuse to provide a single source from a peer-reviewed journal, then you are a liar and an imbecile. Provide such a sourve that supports you and I will accept it.
I don't care if it's creationist or not. If it is produced by real scientists with real degrees from real universities and is published in a real journal, I will have no difficulty accepting what you say. Otherwise, you're just creating a strawman, and I'm not going to stand for it any further. If you wish to engage in an actual scientific debate with actual evidence from credible sources, I will gladly do so. If, however, you continue to lie, make strawmen, and irritate me, I will block you.
I didn't "quote-mine" it. You asked for a noncreationist source that mentioned the lakes, and I gave it. If you don't like that it disagrees with me, why would you specifically ask for one that did...?
I can provide many sources from peer-reviewed journals. Which specific claim would you like one for?
There's a difference between one that mentions that rapid development of an extant canyon was caused by a lake overflow 4-10 mya and one that says that the Grand Canyon was completely formed by one 4000 years ago. The fact that a lake flooded into the Grand Canyon is largely incidental and completely irrelevant to your beliefs.
Again, you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I didn't say the source supports the hydroplate theory, only that it was a uniformitarian source that mentions the lakes.
You need to clarify what questions you're supposedly answering; I asked several, none of which have been addressed.
"Nobody claims God had a direct hand in something like the speed of mountains rising, so the answer wouldn't be "God did it"." This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Obviously no one claims that; that's why idiots like you bastardize science to try to confirm your preconceptions. More importantly, how does no one claiming it make it untrue?
The explanation for a phenomenon has nothing to do with whether anyone is asking a particular question. No one asked whether the Earth revolved around the sun until the 1st Millenium BC. Does that mean the Earth is stationary? Following your "theory" will eventually lead to a point, no matter which direction you follow, where the supernatural is the only possible explanation. All you're trying to do is confirm your preconception that god did it. That's the antithesis of science.
That point you're referring to would be the beginning of the world. But, so what if a supernatural source is given for something, if there's good evidence for it? It would be unscientific to deny it at that point!
No, I'm not. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is your last warning.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural that can't be explained by other means. By definition, for something miraculous to happen, there would have to be no other possible explanation; in other words, if there is any physical explanation possible, it's vastly more likely that that is the cause than the supernatural.
I'd say the ultimate source of all reality and the source of physical laws certainly need supernatural explanations. I'd also say that the evidence for the resurrection is good enough to warrant one.
Given the space limit on comments, we should probably discuss these further in private messages if you want.
No. I've had enough. You came onto my video espousing the hydroplate "theory" and the dam-break hypothesis, but you haven't even attempted to provide adequate evidence for them. You've done nothing but put words in my mouth, quotemine, misrepresent the work of real scientists, create strawmen, and simply lie. I'm tired of you dancing around the issue that you raised. This is your last chance.
You are not going to redirect this discussion without first addressing the topics you brought up. I want peer-reviewed articles from real journals written by scientists who are experts in their fields which clearly and unambiguously support your "theories". If your next post does not include this then I will have no choice but to assume you have no such information and were intentionally misleading me, and I will block you.
"...you haven't even attempted to provide adequate evidence for them."
That's because mostly its been about refuting your video's arguments. There is good evidence for my theory, though. The top of the Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years.
Plus, the Delta isn't nearly large enough for the uniformitarian theory.
You stopped attempting to refute my video within a day when pressed on your lame-duck arguments and began advocating the dam-break and hydroplate hypothoses; you raised the issue, not me. The vast majority of this discussion has been concerned with those subjects, and I have repeatedly asked for scientific sources, which you have directly refused to do. This excuse utterly fails to explain why you can't or won't provide evidence, and is simply a lie.
The very article which you claim confirms your theory is intended to explain how the canyon could be carved through rock which is higher than the source of water. However, the prevailing theory is that the centre of the plateau was subject to uplift after the canyon had already formed. Or do you think the Earth remained unchanged over the past 50 million years?
The Colorado River Delta was among the largest desert deltas in the world until damming reduced sediment deposits. In other words, human activity, within the last century, caused the delta to shrink. If that information can be found within 30 seconds, I am left wondering how little research you have actually done.
You have repeatedly done all of those things listed, and I have repeatedly called you on them. If you can't go back and find all the spots when that occured, then you are an imbecile.
I provided you with a simple task: to find me even one peer-reviewed article which "clearly and unambiguously support your 'theories'." Instead, you provided me with a list of articles from the same creationist source as before, none of which say anything about hydroplates or Hopi or Grand Lakes. Once again, you are essentially quotemining the information that supports your ideas and rejecting the information from the same articles that discredits you.
More importantly, you failed to do what I asked, either because you are unable to do so, or, more likely, because you are a liar. You have done nothing but lie, quotemine, create strawmen, put words in my mouth, and take information out of context. You have provided no corroborating evidence for anything you have claimed from any reliable sources, and have attempted to redirect the discussion without answering any of my questions when pressed.
You are being intentionally disingenuous, and avoiding the issues when they become difficult. I have no interest in further discussing these matters with someone whose only goal is to lie and lead me around in circles.You have been repeatedly warned, and now you are blocked. I hope you learn something from this, but I doubt you will.
You've done nothing but avoid difficult issues. I've called you on it repeatedly, and the fact that you haven't recognized it demonstrates that you ignore anything which doesn't confirm your preconceptions. You're either one of the least intelligent people I've ever encountered, or you're being deliberately belligerent to intentionally irritate me. Either way, I have no interest in discussing anything with you further, either in comments or PMs.
I don't care where you proclaim the truth, I simply have no interest in you doing it on my channel. Blocking you is the equivalent of hanging up on you, because of grown weary of your insults, lies, and other dishonesty. I will not respond to any further comments you post or messages you send me, about any subject. YouTube also provides me with the ability to block you for a reason, and they don't look kindly on you using a separate account to bypass that system.
I have made the choice to not converse with you again, and if you persist in posting on my videos I will consider it harassment. I will not hesistate to report you to YouTube.
I've repeatedly called you on doing those things, such as "YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP." If you don't have the ability to go back through the posts and find the dozens of times I've called you on your dishonesty, then you're a mental midget.
I never said the sources are unreliable; I said that they don't confirm your theory, and you're quotemining them. Once again, you're lying.
You did attempt to redirect the discussion, such as avoiding my question as to why geologists say nothing about hydroplate theory if it's a part of modern geology. You refuse to answer questions when they put you in a difficult position and change the subject, as when you tried to shift the discussion to the origin of natural laws. Finish the original topic first.
I could reccommend numerous articles from the Journal of Creation that do just that, but what's wrong with anticreationist sources that agree with me? Are you not accepting them now?
I also provided an anticreationist source that mentions the lakes.
Is it the case now that if you ever site anything, it must agree 100% with your theory, otherwise it doesn't count?
The Journal of Creation isn't a scientific journal. Articles such as "Crisis in cosmology continues with conference of big-bang dissidents" have nothing to do with current scientific developments, and are essentially news articles. Even those which seem scientific, such as "The Neandertal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution" aren't produced by those actually studying the gene. It's second-hand information which has been subjected to extreme bias.
Peer-reviewed journals are specialized to a certain field, and the peers who review are specialists in that field. For example, the peer-review for a journal of neurology is conducted by neurologists. Most of those on the JoC's review panel don't have Ph. D's, many aren't scientists, and no more than two are specialists in the same field. The "peer-review" amounts to nothing more than determining whether articles support or refute creationism.
More importantly, I've explained numerous times in my videos how beginning with the end in mind, i.e. that the Bible is literally true, will never result in a scientific result. Only following the evidence, no matter where it leads, can find the truth. By merit of the "Journal"'s own name, it has an extreme bias which will taint any attempt at validity. Biblical literalists have voided all claims to scientific credibility by saying that they have an end in mind.
Because the river flows through the desert, and most of the water doesn't reach the sea, most of the sediment settles in the sand and always has done so. The sediment extends for 140 km, but because it's in the desert it's difficult to determine the exact boundaries. Deserts are also subject to extreme erosion because of the lack of plants to hold the soil in place, and the region is subject to extreme tides.
They are there, and quite obvious if you look for them. "Strawman, anyone?"
If the article doesn't confirm your theory, it's irrelevant. The specifics of the lakes is relevant, especially when Walt Brown is making very explicit and absolute claims about things for which he has no evidence. If this is the only source of evidence, then his hypothosis has no basis.
"Timing of Colorado Plateau uplift: Initial constraints from vesicular basalt-derived paleoelevations. Geology; September 2002; v. 30; no. 9; p. 807-810."
"UPLIFT AND EROSION OF THE COLORADO PLATEAU AND GRAND CANYON—IMPLICATIONS OF NEW CALCULATIONS OF LARGE-SCALE ROCK UPLIFT, EXHUMATION, AND RIVER INCISION. PEDERSON, Joel L., MACKLEY, Rob D., EDDLEMAN, James L., and LINDSAY, Brad, Logan."
evaluated using GIS. Joel L. Pederson, Rob D. Mackley, and James L. Eddleman, Department
of Geology, Utah State University."
"Colorado Plateau magmatism and uplift by warming of heterogeneous lithosphere. Nature 459, 978-982 (18 June 2009)." You see, I can actually provide sources to back up my claims. That you can't do the same says that you're lying and have nothing on which to base your hypothoses.
There's a difference between refutation and advocation. Refutation requires evidence which proves that my theory is wrong; you didn't provide anything of the like, instead immediately going into advocating your position. You're an idiot.
I know where you found them, and, again, since they don't confirm your theory they're irrelevant.
He doesn't seem to realize that the flash flood that formed it wasn't the size of a standard modern one. It was much, much, much larger, faster, and more acidic!
I'm not aware of anyone who talks about the top layers being eroded like he does.
If you don't understand the points I make in my video, why do you bother commenting? Obviously I recognize that the "Flood" was supposed to have been larger than flash floods that occur today; when you increase the scale of modern flash floods to that required for Noah's, the amount of erosion is still insufficient to carve out the Grand Canyon. "...more acidic!" What are you basing that on? You're just making things up. In any case, it still wouldn't carve the Grand Canyon.
Your "answers" have done nothing but raise further questions, and you haven't addressed any of the major issues I raised. If the Flood was supposed to have caused all sedimentation, how did it then carve the Grand Canyon out of that? Why did the Flood carve out sections of the Colorado Plateau and leaves buttes, but then only carved out a narrow channel for the Grand Canyon?
If you think I meant that modern flash floods should cause erosion on the scale of the Grand Canyon for the Great Flood to be correct, then obviously you don't understand. If you intend to come on my channel and insult me and tell me that I should be ashamed of myself, then I recommend you just stay away.
You're basing this claim on the existence of lakes for which there is no evidence; there's no mention of them anywhere but on creationist websites. YOU'RE MAKING STUFF UP.
There are examples of dams, both natural and man-made, breaking, and none of them caused erosion on anything approaching the scale of the Grand Canyon. You have nothing to back up your ridiculous claims.
Breaking and draining can and do form large canyons and cracks. None of the modern ones approach the scale of the Grand Canyon because the breakages aren't on the scale of Grand and Hopi lake! These things were immense. Plus, once they got some sediment in them, it'd be like sandpaper. Add some possible acidity into that, and the Grand Canyon is more than feasible!
What "scale of Grand and Hopi lake"? There is no evidence that they ever existed, let alone something which shows how large the breakages supposedly were. Do you think modern floods don't have sediment that would cause erosion? It still doesn't come close to that required. Again, there's nothing on which to base your statement of acidity; there's no evidence for it whatsoever, so you're MAKING IT UP. Even a slight increase in acidity won't cause mass erosion of a narrow channel.
See the previous comments for the evidence they existed issue.
I'm basing the acidity on what things would be like after the Flood. If it did have increased acidity, it would be from the massive volcanic activity.
Your previous comment has no evidence contained in it. I think you need to find out the difference between "evidence" and "wild, unsubstantiated claims".
"I'm basing the acidity on what things would be like after the Flood." So your scientific method is the same as Brown's: there was a Flood; let's make a model of what it would be like after the Flood; let's modify the conditions of the model until we get what we actually see; since that's what we actually see, there must have been a Flood.
What are you basing the "massive volcanic activity" on? There is no evidence, not even within the Bible, about that. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP. At this point, all I can say is that you are grotesquely disingenuous, if not an outright liar.
The extreme volcanism would have been caused by the sliding of the hydroplates. They would have caused enough friction to melt huge quantities of rock, and that's what lava is...
Except that the video said that the hydroplates split and slid because of the volcanism. Nice try. You still haven't explained how a solid crust would start to slide.
Those are produced in the same way as Hovind's predictions: he observes a phenomenon, and claims, in retrospect, that that's what he should observe. Therefore, his theory is right. Hydroplate "theory" falls far short of explaining anything close to all the phenomena we see in geology.
"The issue seems to be your thing the Great Flood itself formed the Grand Canyon, which is simply not the claim." That is, in fact, the claim. This video isn't directed at your claims specifically, and if you think that creationists have only claimed what you do, then you really are an idiot. The vast majority of creationists have stated that the Flood itself carved the Grand Canyon; see Thunderf00t.
Where can you see their shorelines? I can't find any information on them besides creationist websites. If this is part of modern geology, why do no geologists have any information on their location?
You're probably not looking hard enough. The issue is creationists make the biggest deal out of them, so most searches yield their works. However, an example of a non-creationist mention of them would be a paper called "Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River", by Norman Meek and John Douglass. A map of where they were can be seen at tinyurl/lakehopi.
Also, you seem to be ruling out a priori that a creationist can be a geologist!
You are essentially quote-mining this paper. It doesn't say that the Grand Canyon was formed 4000 years ago by a lake overflow; it says that lakes overflowin between 10 and 4 million years ago caused the already-existing canyon to develop still further. You are simply a liar, and I won't stand for it any further.
You claim that the shores of Hopi and Grand Lakes can be seen, yet the only evidence you have is a map produced by Walt Brown.
That's not evidence, and if you think it is then you really are an idiot. If it's so easy to find these shores, show me photographs.
I never said that creationists can't be geologists, and vice versa. I've simply never found a practicing geologist with a degree from an accredited university who claimed the Earth was 6000 years old. Strawman.
The video for which Thunderf00t is best known is one in which he refutes the hypothesis presented by VenomFangX that the Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes by the Flood, not a lake overflowing. If you think he's just an internet kook, and not a serious creationist, Kent Hovind, Answers in Genesis and numerous have, and still do, espouse this same theory. Are you really so mind-numbingly arrogant that you can't even recognize that other creationists don't agree with you?
Hovind doesn't support that. In a CSE newsletter, they talked about the lakes spilling over to form the Grand Canyon. AiG hosts materials by people who accept many different theories, but could I have a source that they espouse it...?
Also, why should I care if other creationists disagree? Not all evolutionists agree on how the Grand Canyon was formed.
Creationist organizations like CSE and AiG have changed their positions after having their hypotheses dismantled so many times that their current positions are nothing at all like what they originally espoused. The Discovery Institute, for example, stopped supporting intelligent design after the Dover Trial.
I'm not aware of any prominent creationist who claims the Flood was caused solely by rain. The Bible doesn't even support that! It says, in Genesis 7:11 - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
Pour some water into a bucket, add some sand, and mix it up. See what happens when you let it settle. It takes more than one inundation to cause stratification.
"The bursting of the fountains of the Great Deep." If that's the case, where are the enormous gaps in the Earth's crust? And for that matter, how did that material get from the bottom of the deepest ocean up onto a plateau thousands of feet above sea level?
"Is he assuming the mountains were there before the Flood...?" Yes. That is one of the principles of Biblical literalism. God created everything in six days and never made anything new after. If they weren't there, where did they come from? Why were the mountains raised but not the plateau?
See the link to the video in my previous comment. It answers most basic questions like these...which you should already know if you're making a video on the subject :|
"Pour some water into a bucket, add some sand, and mix it up."
Your problem seems to be a lack of understand of current Flood models. The simple experiment that can be found at tinyurl/floodexperiment demonstrates it far better.
"If that's the case, where are the enormous gaps in the Earth's crust? And for that matter, how did that material get from the bottom of the deepest ocean up onto a plateau thousands of feet above sea level?"
If the best information you can come up with comes from the Center for Scientific Creation, then you've already failed to make your point. If you can't provide a peer-reviewed source by an expert in geology (not a mechanical engineer) then your claims are flimsy at best. All of the hypotheses presented in the video and website are based on an enormous number of assumptions for which there is no evidence. A teeter-totter with water jugs hardly counts as a scientific experiment.
It doesn't even answer all of the problems with stratification, such as why are all the fossils of some species found in specific layers, but in no others. Species are confined to particular layers, and there's no way wave motion could separate bones that precisely. Provide a source from an expert in his or her field which has been peer-reviewed and clearly shows that all of modern geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and archaeology is wrong, or go away.
Keep in mind it was a response to you telling me to fill a bucket with dirt and water. Nobody's claiming that it's an advanced experiment. It just demonstrates the basic principles involved.
"...such as why are all the fossils of some species found in specific layers..."
Hydrologic sorting. In a scenario like the Flood, the remains, like the sediments, that weren't destroyed could and would be sorted like we see them based on various physical features
My experiment just confirms all of the evidence provided by other fields of science. Walt Brown's experiment is the ONLY source for his claims. All he did was create an experiment and modify the conditions until he achieved the results that he expected, and then said that those were the conditions that must have existed at the time of the Flood; therefore, there was a flood. There is no evidence of any of the things he claims.
Hydrologic sorting explains nothing. I explained that in one of my videos. The chances of EVERY animal of EVERY species being sorted into separate layers are so small that the only way for it to happen is by saying "god did it".
Nobody's claiming that everything in all of those fields is wrong. The hydroplate theory is part of modern geology (and several other fields).
Also, archaeology is decisively in my favor on this point. Cultures from Hawaii to China all have tales about a worldwide flood, often with a divine cause and/or one family of eight surviving on a boat. Why is that, and why would they agree on minor details such as that?
The hydroplate theory has nothing to do with modern geology. Provide a single source from a peer-reviewed geology journal which says that the hydroplate theory is correct. In fact, the hydroplate theory contradicts all of the basic principles of physics and geology, and just raises further questions. What caused the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to rise so abruptly? How could a solid crust move? How did the water end up under the crust in the first place? Eventually the only answer is "god did it".
Brown isn't a specialist in any of those fields. He's a mechanical engineer, and the only source for that is his own website, which calls even that claim into question. His has no specialized knowledge of these issues, and his hypotheses haven't been confirmed by any real scientists. They've even been discredited by other creationists.
Archaeology shows civilization continuing without disruption for 10000 years; what you're talking about is anthropology.
If you can't get even that right, why should I listen to you? Besides, floods are quite common, and chances are that some of them would have survivors. In terms of specific details, how many of those stories are exactly the same? What you're saying is like claiming that two people are related because they have the same eye colour. Vague similarities are evidence of nothing. More importantly, human testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially when it's been passed down hundreds of generations.
"My friend's friend's friend's friend's uncle's neighbour knows a guy who lived through the flood." Now multiply that hundreds of times over. Would you accept that as valid evidence? We don't have a single contemporary written source from a survivor of the Flood.
Everyone in the world isn't claiming it, and it would still fail as anything but hearsay.
If you actually think that parts of Genesis were written by ANYONE mentioned in it then you know nothing about the historicity of the Bible. Not even the most religious Biblical historians claim that the first five books of the Bible were written earlier than 1100 BC. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP.
We know of several of these flood stories from archaeology. As such, calling it archaeology is appropriate.
Floods are quite common, but why would that make anyone start talking about a worldwide flood after which eight related survivors repopulated the world? These aren't "vague similarities" I'm talking about!
As far as which cultures say what, you can see a chart at tinyurl/FloodLegendsChart
Calling it archaeology is not appropriate if the sources are modern folk tales.
Stories become blown out of proportion over time, especially with thousands of retellings. Do you think the events of the Iliad are historical? The more importance attached to a story, the more fantastic it beomes over time. I can't find a single flood story in which eight related people survive; the only similarities are that a small number of people survived a great flood.
Sorry Iwas trying to say, water under pressure released from dams has cut through rock, but something on the scale of the grand Canyon would mean there had to be alot of water under pressure. Nothing is impossible if its within natural reasoning...
SuteUp 6 months ago
The Earth doesnt have to have a uniform layer of sediments...there was no even distribution, look at the dover cliffs of England, etc. The area of the Grand Canyon could have been cut out after the flood, after the water had went down, water could have been trapped upstream and when it broke through, it possibly cut out the canyon in the soft sedimentary material, before it became stone...Thats just to say, the canyon was not solid when it was cut out. But water released from dams have cutrock
SuteUp 6 months ago
@SuteUp Creationists look at the Grand Canyon and need to show it could happen rapidly. But the question remains, How did the layerw get there?
The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it.
There are 44 Distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK exposed in the Grand Canyon.
Some are slow growing corals like in the Redwall limestone.
Floods don’t do that.
Not all sedimentary rock is from water! Like ash layers.
gregrutz 4 months ago
17) there are many more things that i can go on and on about but either you probably dont care. however, i hope that i have shed some new light on your viewpoint of creationsts views. you might not belive in creation, but atleast you might be more informed on the topic. i encorage you to really study the topic. i by no means know everything or explain it most correctly. there are many people out there more qualified than me and could help you out if you really wanted to learn me. thanks. =D
Kezazah 1 year ago
16) i know your trying to prove a point but dont put words in creationists mouth. there are many scientifical phenomenons that explain how the flood caused the grandcanyon among other things such as the fossil record. liquifaction, stratification, cavitation, hydrologic sorting etc. if you want an honest opinion and a factualy sound argument, get the research correct before making a statement about your opponets view. your very uninformed on the topic. contd on netx post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
15) you said there is no place for the sediments to come from exceptthe mountains. the last i remember. there are huge gaps in the earths crust called oceans. i assume alot of the sediments of the earth were removed from the "oceans" when the fountains of the deep broke open during the flood. when the flood water came from the depth of the earth, it pushed away the sediments and it widened the oceans gretly. this sediment was free to move through the flood waters there after. (contd next psot)
Kezazah 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kezazah '' there are huge gaps in the earths crust called oceans. '' That's funny. Did you ever think there might be dirt [an oceanic plate] under the oceans?
gregrutz 8 months ago
14) the rock formations you showed actually show major erosion. i dont see the logic behind denying it was caused by water erosion. wind erosion would be evenly distrbited and cause a "symmetrical" erosion for lack of a better word. the strange circular picture you showed, illustrated that a massive stream of water flowed near it quickly eroding the bottom edge of it and not the top. contd on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
13) your continued point of rain casuing erosion or flood or wateever is not true. if it rained enough to cover the world with water. the earth would literally cook. its called the latent heat of condensation. when water apor forms into water particles it releases heat. the heat generated from a "gloabl rain" produced flood would be geophysically impossible. reread genesis and pay attenion to the details. the majorit of the water came from the depth of the earth. contd next post
Kezazah 1 year ago
12) i agree there are many fossile in the layers. however do you know how fossile are formed? keep in mind no fossile are being implmented in todays earth. to form a fossi the specimen needs to be buried alive or shortly after death, far enough under ground to be out of the presence of oxygen. this preserves the fosile and will fosilize when the dirt becomes stone after several years. a global flood would bury millions of animals quickly and under lots of water. (cont next post)
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah There are fossils in tar pits.
gregrutz 10 months ago
11) there is also a big problem with the multiple ages theory for the layers. during excavation of fossiles and digging for coal and etc. there are prtrified tree standing upright through the layers that are "millions of years old" they are sometimes upside down. through multiple layers. i honestly would like to know how you explain this. these trees are called polystrata fossiles i belive, look em up. cont on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah upright through the layers that are "millions of years old"
Only creationists say they layers took millions of years, they didn't. They are millions of years old and so is the tree.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz haha good one
RefinersFire298 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RefinersFire298 you talk ok butt you got an open mindwhen you bend over likthe fag you are your brains fall out
thoostorm4 7 months ago
10) your saying that these layers are not the result of a flood, then what are they? i assume you will say millions of year. however, how do you know they are milliions of years old? you will probably say that you determine it by index fossiles. however, how do you know how old the fossiles are? you determine the fossiles by what layer they are in and by the evolutionary theory. its circular reasoing. in fact, none of the layers are even radioactively dated. contd next post
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah A flood does not make what we find in nature, distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. Floods don't make ash layers, corals, chalk or limestone.
gregrutz 10 months ago
9) im assuming you belive the colorado river formed the grand canyon, besides the geophysical impliscations and impossiblities i mentioned earlier, it aslo has another porblem. every river has a delta. if the colorado river formed the grand canyon and washed away ALLLL those sediments, we should expect to find a sizable delta. instead, not delta is at all found. this conforms to the idea that the grandcanyon was the result of a spillway, not erosion of a river. contd next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah What made the Colorado Plateau? Look at what the water cut, 5000 feet of sediments that got raised to 8000 feet above sea level. Some are corals, some are wind blown sand!
gregrutz 10 months ago
8) as someone posted that the coaldeposits are evidence that the biomass could not produce the coal seams in one "era" is based on uniformitainism. you assume that the same ammount of plants and land mass are availble today as it was in geneis. when in fact in genesis, there was much more land mass and plants. the flood has made much of the land mass unaccessable or eroded, or uninhabitbale. also, more oxygen present in the atmosphere would cause greater ammount of plants and size. cont next pst
Kezazah 1 year ago
@Kezazah uniformitainism says the PROCESSES are the same. There is more than one layer of coal. How many floods are you making up?
gregrutz 10 months ago
6) your experiment about the water eroding the limestone is fallacious. limestone is a rock and a glass of water is not going to erode it. the flood was massive amounts of water for almost a year and had much debris in it that sped up erosion greatly.
7) every "rock layer" in the "geologic column" is a sedimentary rock. sedimentary rocks are formed by layers from water. i.e a flood is a logical reason for the stratification. ... contd. on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
5) the mountains you mention that have little or no erosion is surprising. i didnt know that, however that actually helps out the creationist. if you read genesis carefully, it says the mountains arose in the last days of the flood. just about when the waters were receding. therefore, we should expect the mountains would have little erosion because they werent there for the majority of the flood. contd on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
3) the colorado river you claim carved the grand canyon is geophysically imposible. the river enters the canyon 4000-6000 ft below the top of the canyon. if the river was level to its entrance into the canyon, it could not carve the 6000 ft above it.
4) the flood was not only 40 days. thats a common misconception. if you read genesis carefully the flood was nearly a year long event. it rained for 40 days, the flood was much longer. ... contd on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
these lakes "followed the path of least resistance" and caused a gash on one side of the lake and flowed down into the now present colordo river channel. The beaches and channels are still present today. secondly, the ground was not solid rock at this time. it was shortly after the flood. it was relativly just dirt. also, the grand canyon was caused as the result of a spillway from massive lakes, not aflood. we can see effect even today in modern events. .. contd. on next post.
Kezazah 1 year ago
first off im a creationists. there are many flaws in your theory that i think you have been not fully enformed on by an educated creationist.
1) the 40 days of rain did not cause the flood. yes, it rained but most of it came from inside the earth. go reread genesis.
2) grand canyon was not formed from the flood or rain, nor was it cut from solid rock. there were 2 previous massive lakes near present day grand canyon. these lakes called hopi lake and grand lake overflowed ... contd on next post
Kezazah 1 year ago
If you are brave, I suggest you Google "creation flood models" and read what Chadwick says on the subject.
Your arguments against the worldwide flood don't deal with actual models of the flood. So, if you really want to be convincing you will have to leave your comfort zone and read some creationist literature that isn't written on the popular level.
BTW, the water that covered the earth came from two sources. Rain was one. See Gen. 7.11; 8.2 for the other. That water wasn't stagnant.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Are you kidding? You expect me to address every model of the flood ever postulated? These are very basic concepts which are relevant to every model, such as why there is a mile of sediment on the Colorado Plateau and almost none on the Canadian Shield, where the sediment came from, and why it would form layers at all. Hint: the grains aren't ordered by size, as creationists so often posit.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Neither you nor any other creationist on here has actually addressed my points; you just send me off to read another interminably long, utterly flawed, non-peer-reviewed article written by someone who isn't a specialist in the field and expect me to address it, which would require an entire series of its own. Until you address the basic flaws I pointed out in my videos, I'm not going to waste my time refuting more complex hypothoses which also ignore those issues.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 I sent you to a single article that you could easily read. Your arguments are only strawmen unless you understand real flood models. If you do understand real flood models and this is what you put up as problems, then you are being dishonestly setting up strawmen. I didn't take it that you were being dishonest. I have given you the chance to evaluate real flood models and then see if you still have the same questions.
It's up to you whether you are brave enough to do this.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I sincerely apologize if the video I made well over a year ago didn't directly address the points made in a single article given to me two days ago. It's not a strawman just because your article makes no mention of these issues; 95% of the models I've ever been presented with - including five found in as many minutes on AiG - state that all the Earth's sedimentary rock was laid down during the flood, and that it could only have done so to such an extent during a global deluge.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Once more, they, and you, have failed to address why these sediments would pile so high on the Colorado Plateau, but not on the Canadian Shield. I've read their articles in full, but never found this disparity explained. This is an extremely basic concept, and a universal one at that. I really don't care what your personal opinion is; it's as though someone were to enter your house and begin accosting you over a political issue in which you had only mild interest.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Until you've addressed the most fundamental of problems, which affect all flood models, then there's no reason to even consider the specific details of the varying and disparate hypothoses. For that matter, if you aren't actually going to address the points I made in my video, then there's really no reason for you to post on it. That said, I don't see any point in discussing anything with you until you actually critique my arguments.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 You cannot be judged in a year-old video for things you did not know. That is why I pointed you to what you did not know. If you read the article and learn why you have oversimplified the process of sedimentation, but still leave the video up as representing flood models, then it will be a genuine strawman.
At present it offers unwitting strawman arguments. You did not know a year ago what you will know after reading the article.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You truly are an idiot. I AM ADDRESSING POINTS IN OTHER ARTICLES THAT HAVE EQUALLY VALID MODELS WHICH ARE EQUALLY UNTESTED. And here's a little gem from Chadwick: "Powerful marine currents rush across the submerged landforms, distributing sediment and organisms across the continents..." So where, exactly, does he explain the uneven distribution of sedimentary rock? I read nothing about that. Your beloved article doesn't explain a single point raised in my video. Moron.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 You truly are missing what I said--all the details of flood models are not in a single article. You wouldn't expect them to. Morgan.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@diagoras54 It isn't a single bathtub of water with one set of currents, yet the maps of currents which Chadwick has compiled show precisely what he describes. Distribution maps show a strong correlation between the deposition in the Grand Canyon and other locations.
I realize you have your ego tied up in your arguments, so it is difficult to acknowledge other data and a different paradigm of explanation.
Morgan.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson "Issues remain?" Oh you mean all the salt deposits and anhydrites that directley contradict a global flood? Or is it the varves? Or better yet the biomass indicated by the fossils. How about the chemical composition of some of the formations? Yes, these are all issues that confront, and defeat the YECer and the Genesis Literalist. And that's just geology.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Hats off to you! I've never even looked at these issues (except the varves), so, no, these weren't the issues to which I was referring.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There's a huge amount of data that can be covered. You could take just one slice of geology, say igneous formations, and by calculating their volume, the temperature they form at, and rates of cooling as determined by crystallization and show, one that the earth is much older than 6k years, and two, that a Noachian Flood never happened. Same goes for meteor impacts in the rock record.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Indeed I did. Did you look up the verses?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What "verses"?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 "BTW, the water that covered the earth came from two sources. Rain was one. See Gen. 7.11; 8.2 for the other. That water wasn't stagnant."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Except that no one's ever found these fountains, or evidence for their existence (and the mid-ocean ridges are volcanic, not aquatic). It still has absolutely no relevance whatsoever on where the sediment came from, unless you're of the opinion that the water rapidly eroded miles of the Earth's crust as it rushed out, without leaving gaping holes, and, as I've repeatedly said, doesn't tell why some places have a mile of sedimentary rock, and some have none.
diagoras54 1 year ago
By the way, I apologize for the insults of other Creationists. No matter how strongly a Christian feels about his beliefs, he or she has no right to insult other people--even if insulted first.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
"But we don't" Simplistic views of a giant bathtub fall far short of postulated flood models. There are enormous areas where strata does indeed lay down for miles on end without erosion between layers. The millions of years scenario makes no sense of these formations. In fact, it makes no sense of the strata in the Grand Canyon. Flat flat layers extending as far as the eye can see. This was done at one time, not little bit by little bit.
But, if you want to close your eyes to the evidence ...
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson How does it make "no sense"? The strata were laid down under the sea, where erosion is minimal, which is precisely one of the points I made in the video. But, if you want to close your eyes to the video you're watching...
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 This is rapid deposition with catastrophic burial. Work on the deposits show directional flow--not what an ocean bottom would show.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Unless, of course, there were something that could cause sediment to flow in one direction. Too bad there's nothing like a current or river outlet that would ever do so...
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 so now it's a river? Your feet do move quickly.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You quote-mining moron. Note how I said "river outlet", as in the point at which a river lets out into the ocean, and, thus slowing, deposits its silt in what's known as a delta. In some places, this can even be quite large, and form a broad alluvial plain on the bottom of the ocean. I'm seriously beginning to question your cognitive functioning.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 Your quote. I just read it. Your disrespect merits a good vacation.
I hope that some day you let down your pride and open your mind. God has more in mind for you than you have for yourself.
Cheerio!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, and you quote-mined it to get "river" in place of "ocean". Your arrogance in assuming, first, that I'm making a strawman because I'm not addressing your particular article, and second, that you know what I have in mind for myself, or more incredibly, that you know god's mind, is simply staggering. I certainly hope you don't return.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54 *smile*
One point, you have apparently missed: I did not accuse you of making a strawman. What I did was to note that you are unaware of issues THAT WOULD MAKE your arguments strawmen if you knew them. To remedy the lack of awareness and to keep the amount of your research to a minimum, I suggested a single article. However, the article is not and cannot be exhaustive.
I will hold you accountable when I know that you ARE accountable--when you demonstrate awareness of flood models.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson P.S. I don't have to know what you have in your mind for yourself.
The infinite God has infinitely more in mind for you than you could ever have for yourself.
Calling someone names to avoid dealing with issues will not excuse you. Whether I'm here or whether I'm not, the issues remain.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
People believe in the flood because one time there was a flood in iraq. SInce christians still believe iraq is the entire planet, they think there was a worldwide flood. End of story.
grendelee 1 year ago
Well let's see. You got the creationist's claims wrong. You got the geologist's claims wrong. Wow, you get 100%. That 's an A. I like this new society. Everyone gets a trophy.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Please clarify. Obviously you're much more familiar with everything than I am, so explain how I failed to comprehend the geology. Also, when did the creationists create a single, overarching canon of their beliefs? Or are you familiar with the claims of each individual creationist on Earth?
diagoras54 1 year ago
@mejc2 When I read posts like this, my first reaction is that you're arrogant and presumptuous, and because you made no specific points, you probably are no more familiar with the subject matter than what you've seen in a Kent Hovind video.
diagoras54 1 year ago
@diagoras54
Or I'm just that smart. You're welcome. However don't bother me any more.
mejc2 1 year ago
@mejc2 Don't bother you anymore? You came on my video and told me that I'm wrong, without any evidence whatsoever, you moron. If you came into my house and slapped me, you wouldn't get to decide that I'm not allowed to bother you anymore, and it's no different because we're on the internet. If you have a point to make, make it. If you can't defend your idiotic statements, you shouldn't have made them in the first place.
diagoras54 1 year ago
Watch Walter Brown, he is alot more convincing than you and if you are really brave, watch Chuck Missler.
rhuezo67 1 year ago
"Provide a single source from a peer-reviewed geology journal which says that the hydroplate theory is correct."
Any source I provided would pretty much by definition be a creationist one, which you'll just reject anyway.
Your first two questions are answered in the video I posted. Forthe third, it was always there.
Nobody claims God had a direct hand in something like the speed of mountains rising, so the answer wouldn't be "God did it".
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You've provided me two sources: one was quote-mined, and refutes your own hypothosis; the other is, by its own definition, creationist. It's rather difficult of me to dismiss your sources because they're creationist when you've only provided one source, which is creationist. You're putting words in my mouth, and I'm sick of it; if you refuse to provide a single source from a peer-reviewed journal, then you are a liar and an imbecile. Provide such a sourve that supports you and I will accept it.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I don't care if it's creationist or not. If it is produced by real scientists with real degrees from real universities and is published in a real journal, I will have no difficulty accepting what you say. Otherwise, you're just creating a strawman, and I'm not going to stand for it any further. If you wish to engage in an actual scientific debate with actual evidence from credible sources, I will gladly do so. If, however, you continue to lie, make strawmen, and irritate me, I will block you.
diagoras54 2 years ago
What are the criteria for something being a "real journal"?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
One that is produced by specialists in their field, with peer-review.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I didn't "quote-mine" it. You asked for a noncreationist source that mentioned the lakes, and I gave it. If you don't like that it disagrees with me, why would you specifically ask for one that did...?
I can provide many sources from peer-reviewed journals. Which specific claim would you like one for?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
There's a difference between one that mentions that rapid development of an extant canyon was caused by a lake overflow 4-10 mya and one that says that the Grand Canyon was completely formed by one 4000 years ago. The fact that a lake flooded into the Grand Canyon is largely incidental and completely irrelevant to your beliefs.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Again, you're misunderstanding what I was saying. I didn't say the source supports the hydroplate theory, only that it was a uniformitarian source that mentions the lakes.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You need to clarify what questions you're supposedly answering; I asked several, none of which have been addressed.
"Nobody claims God had a direct hand in something like the speed of mountains rising, so the answer wouldn't be "God did it"." This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Obviously no one claims that; that's why idiots like you bastardize science to try to confirm your preconceptions. More importantly, how does no one claiming it make it untrue?
diagoras54 2 years ago
The explanation for a phenomenon has nothing to do with whether anyone is asking a particular question. No one asked whether the Earth revolved around the sun until the 1st Millenium BC. Does that mean the Earth is stationary? Following your "theory" will eventually lead to a point, no matter which direction you follow, where the supernatural is the only possible explanation. All you're trying to do is confirm your preconception that god did it. That's the antithesis of science.
diagoras54 2 years ago
That point you're referring to would be the beginning of the world. But, so what if a supernatural source is given for something, if there's good evidence for it? It would be unscientific to deny it at that point!
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
No, I'm not. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is your last warning.
There is no evidence of anything supernatural that can't be explained by other means. By definition, for something miraculous to happen, there would have to be no other possible explanation; in other words, if there is any physical explanation possible, it's vastly more likely that that is the cause than the supernatural.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I'd say the ultimate source of all reality and the source of physical laws certainly need supernatural explanations. I'd also say that the evidence for the resurrection is good enough to warrant one.
Given the space limit on comments, we should probably discuss these further in private messages if you want.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
No. I've had enough. You came onto my video espousing the hydroplate "theory" and the dam-break hypothesis, but you haven't even attempted to provide adequate evidence for them. You've done nothing but put words in my mouth, quotemine, misrepresent the work of real scientists, create strawmen, and simply lie. I'm tired of you dancing around the issue that you raised. This is your last chance.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You are not going to redirect this discussion without first addressing the topics you brought up. I want peer-reviewed articles from real journals written by scientists who are experts in their fields which clearly and unambiguously support your "theories". If your next post does not include this then I will have no choice but to assume you have no such information and were intentionally misleading me, and I will block you.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I'm not trying to redirect the discussion...that's why I said if we were to discuss those particular issues, we should do it in private messages.
You can find some of what you're looking for at tinyurl/hydroplatejour.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"...you haven't even attempted to provide adequate evidence for them."
That's because mostly its been about refuting your video's arguments. There is good evidence for my theory, though. The top of the Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years.
Plus, the Delta isn't nearly large enough for the uniformitarian theory.
When have I done those things you listed?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You stopped attempting to refute my video within a day when pressed on your lame-duck arguments and began advocating the dam-break and hydroplate hypothoses; you raised the issue, not me. The vast majority of this discussion has been concerned with those subjects, and I have repeatedly asked for scientific sources, which you have directly refused to do. This excuse utterly fails to explain why you can't or won't provide evidence, and is simply a lie.
diagoras54 2 years ago
The very article which you claim confirms your theory is intended to explain how the canyon could be carved through rock which is higher than the source of water. However, the prevailing theory is that the centre of the plateau was subject to uplift after the canyon had already formed. Or do you think the Earth remained unchanged over the past 50 million years?
diagoras54 2 years ago
The Colorado River Delta was among the largest desert deltas in the world until damming reduced sediment deposits. In other words, human activity, within the last century, caused the delta to shrink. If that information can be found within 30 seconds, I am left wondering how little research you have actually done.
You have repeatedly done all of those things listed, and I have repeatedly called you on them. If you can't go back and find all the spots when that occured, then you are an imbecile.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I provided you with a simple task: to find me even one peer-reviewed article which "clearly and unambiguously support your 'theories'." Instead, you provided me with a list of articles from the same creationist source as before, none of which say anything about hydroplates or Hopi or Grand Lakes. Once again, you are essentially quotemining the information that supports your ideas and rejecting the information from the same articles that discredits you.
diagoras54 2 years ago
More importantly, you failed to do what I asked, either because you are unable to do so, or, more likely, because you are a liar. You have done nothing but lie, quotemine, create strawmen, put words in my mouth, and take information out of context. You have provided no corroborating evidence for anything you have claimed from any reliable sources, and have attempted to redirect the discussion without answering any of my questions when pressed.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You are being intentionally disingenuous, and avoiding the issues when they become difficult. I have no interest in further discussing these matters with someone whose only goal is to lie and lead me around in circles.You have been repeatedly warned, and now you are blocked. I hope you learn something from this, but I doubt you will.
diagoras54 2 years ago
When have I avoided issues once they became difficult?
"...now you are blocked."
Oh come now, do you really think it's going to be that easy to get rid of me?
You should know that you can't keep the truth from being proclaimed for long.
y8fiih3 2 years ago
You've done nothing but avoid difficult issues. I've called you on it repeatedly, and the fact that you haven't recognized it demonstrates that you ignore anything which doesn't confirm your preconceptions. You're either one of the least intelligent people I've ever encountered, or you're being deliberately belligerent to intentionally irritate me. Either way, I have no interest in discussing anything with you further, either in comments or PMs.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I don't care where you proclaim the truth, I simply have no interest in you doing it on my channel. Blocking you is the equivalent of hanging up on you, because of grown weary of your insults, lies, and other dishonesty. I will not respond to any further comments you post or messages you send me, about any subject. YouTube also provides me with the ability to block you for a reason, and they don't look kindly on you using a separate account to bypass that system.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I have made the choice to not converse with you again, and if you persist in posting on my videos I will consider it harassment. I will not hesistate to report you to YouTube.
diagoras54 2 years ago
When have I done those things?
Why are the sources unreliable?
I didn't try to redirect the discussion. I specifically said that we shouldn't discuss those particular issues in the comments!
y8fiih3 2 years ago
I've repeatedly called you on doing those things, such as "YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP." If you don't have the ability to go back through the posts and find the dozens of times I've called you on your dishonesty, then you're a mental midget.
I never said the sources are unreliable; I said that they don't confirm your theory, and you're quotemining them. Once again, you're lying.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You did attempt to redirect the discussion, such as avoiding my question as to why geologists say nothing about hydroplate theory if it's a part of modern geology. You refuse to answer questions when they put you in a difficult position and change the subject, as when you tried to shift the discussion to the origin of natural laws. Finish the original topic first.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I could reccommend numerous articles from the Journal of Creation that do just that, but what's wrong with anticreationist sources that agree with me? Are you not accepting them now?
I also provided an anticreationist source that mentions the lakes.
Is it the case now that if you ever site anything, it must agree 100% with your theory, otherwise it doesn't count?
y8fiih3 2 years ago
The Journal of Creation isn't a scientific journal. Articles such as "Crisis in cosmology continues with conference of big-bang dissidents" have nothing to do with current scientific developments, and are essentially news articles. Even those which seem scientific, such as "The Neandertal mitochondrial genome does not support evolution" aren't produced by those actually studying the gene. It's second-hand information which has been subjected to extreme bias.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Peer-reviewed journals are specialized to a certain field, and the peers who review are specialists in that field. For example, the peer-review for a journal of neurology is conducted by neurologists. Most of those on the JoC's review panel don't have Ph. D's, many aren't scientists, and no more than two are specialists in the same field. The "peer-review" amounts to nothing more than determining whether articles support or refute creationism.
diagoras54 2 years ago
More importantly, I've explained numerous times in my videos how beginning with the end in mind, i.e. that the Bible is literally true, will never result in a scientific result. Only following the evidence, no matter where it leads, can find the truth. By merit of the "Journal"'s own name, it has an extreme bias which will taint any attempt at validity. Biblical literalists have voided all claims to scientific credibility by saying that they have an end in mind.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Right, but the question is: shrink by how much? Definitely not by 10 million years' worth of sediment deposit!
"If you can't go back and find all the spots when that occured, then you are an imbecile."
Or, is it that I can't find the spots because there are none?
y8fiih3 2 years ago
Because the river flows through the desert, and most of the water doesn't reach the sea, most of the sediment settles in the sand and always has done so. The sediment extends for 140 km, but because it's in the desert it's difficult to determine the exact boundaries. Deserts are also subject to extreme erosion because of the lack of plants to hold the soil in place, and the region is subject to extreme tides.
They are there, and quite obvious if you look for them. "Strawman, anyone?"
diagoras54 2 years ago
Once again, I don't claim the article confirms my theory...all I said about it was that it mentions the lakes whose existence you doubt.
What's your evidence that this uplift occured?
y8fiih3 2 years ago
If the article doesn't confirm your theory, it's irrelevant. The specifics of the lakes is relevant, especially when Walt Brown is making very explicit and absolute claims about things for which he has no evidence. If this is the only source of evidence, then his hypothosis has no basis.
diagoras54 2 years ago
"Timing of Colorado Plateau uplift: Initial constraints from vesicular basalt-derived paleoelevations. Geology; September 2002; v. 30; no. 9; p. 807-810."
"UPLIFT AND EROSION OF THE COLORADO PLATEAU AND GRAND CANYON—IMPLICATIONS OF NEW CALCULATIONS OF LARGE-SCALE ROCK UPLIFT, EXHUMATION, AND RIVER INCISION. PEDERSON, Joel L., MACKLEY, Rob D., EDDLEMAN, James L., and LINDSAY, Brad, Logan."
diagoras54 2 years ago
"Colorado Plateau uplift and erosion
evaluated using GIS. Joel L. Pederson, Rob D. Mackley, and James L. Eddleman, Department
of Geology, Utah State University."
"Colorado Plateau magmatism and uplift by warming of heterogeneous lithosphere. Nature 459, 978-982 (18 June 2009)." You see, I can actually provide sources to back up my claims. That you can't do the same says that you're lying and have nothing on which to base your hypothoses.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Of course I began advocating them when you gave your counter-arguments...my replies probably wouldn't have made any sense if I hadn't!
I gave where you can find the scientific sources in my last comment. It was at tinyurl/hydroplatejour
y8fiih3 2 years ago
There's a difference between refutation and advocation. Refutation requires evidence which proves that my theory is wrong; you didn't provide anything of the like, instead immediately going into advocating your position. You're an idiot.
I know where you found them, and, again, since they don't confirm your theory they're irrelevant.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Which questions did I not address?
I never said nobody claiming it made it untrue. The issue is, since neither of us hold it to be true, there's no point in us discussing it.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
He doesn't seem to realize that the flash flood that formed it wasn't the size of a standard modern one. It was much, much, much larger, faster, and more acidic!
I'm not aware of anyone who talks about the top layers being eroded like he does.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
If you don't understand the points I make in my video, why do you bother commenting? Obviously I recognize that the "Flood" was supposed to have been larger than flash floods that occur today; when you increase the scale of modern flash floods to that required for Noah's, the amount of erosion is still insufficient to carve out the Grand Canyon. "...more acidic!" What are you basing that on? You're just making things up. In any case, it still wouldn't carve the Grand Canyon.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Your "answers" have done nothing but raise further questions, and you haven't addressed any of the major issues I raised. If the Flood was supposed to have caused all sedimentation, how did it then carve the Grand Canyon out of that? Why did the Flood carve out sections of the Colorado Plateau and leaves buttes, but then only carved out a narrow channel for the Grand Canyon?
diagoras54 2 years ago
I do understand the points. It's you who doesn't seem to understand your subject...
The Flood of Noah itself didn't carve the Grand Canyon, it was a later spillover of Grand and Hopi lakes.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
If you think I meant that modern flash floods should cause erosion on the scale of the Grand Canyon for the Great Flood to be correct, then obviously you don't understand. If you intend to come on my channel and insult me and tell me that I should be ashamed of myself, then I recommend you just stay away.
You're basing this claim on the existence of lakes for which there is no evidence; there's no mention of them anywhere but on creationist websites. YOU'RE MAKING STUFF UP.
diagoras54 2 years ago
There are examples of dams, both natural and man-made, breaking, and none of them caused erosion on anything approaching the scale of the Grand Canyon. You have nothing to back up your ridiculous claims.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Breaking and draining can and do form large canyons and cracks. None of the modern ones approach the scale of the Grand Canyon because the breakages aren't on the scale of Grand and Hopi lake! These things were immense. Plus, once they got some sediment in them, it'd be like sandpaper. Add some possible acidity into that, and the Grand Canyon is more than feasible!
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
What "scale of Grand and Hopi lake"? There is no evidence that they ever existed, let alone something which shows how large the breakages supposedly were. Do you think modern floods don't have sediment that would cause erosion? It still doesn't come close to that required. Again, there's nothing on which to base your statement of acidity; there's no evidence for it whatsoever, so you're MAKING IT UP. Even a slight increase in acidity won't cause mass erosion of a narrow channel.
diagoras54 2 years ago
See the previous comments for the evidence they existed issue.
I'm basing the acidity on what things would be like after the Flood. If it did have increased acidity, it would be from the massive volcanic activity.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Your previous comment has no evidence contained in it. I think you need to find out the difference between "evidence" and "wild, unsubstantiated claims".
"I'm basing the acidity on what things would be like after the Flood." So your scientific method is the same as Brown's: there was a Flood; let's make a model of what it would be like after the Flood; let's modify the conditions of the model until we get what we actually see; since that's what we actually see, there must have been a Flood.
diagoras54 2 years ago
What are you basing the "massive volcanic activity" on? There is no evidence, not even within the Bible, about that. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP. At this point, all I can say is that you are grotesquely disingenuous, if not an outright liar.
diagoras54 2 years ago
The extreme volcanism would have been caused by the sliding of the hydroplates. They would have caused enough friction to melt huge quantities of rock, and that's what lava is...
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Except that the video said that the hydroplates split and slid because of the volcanism. Nice try. You still haven't explained how a solid crust would start to slide.
diagoras54 2 years ago
It said they split and slid because the fountains of the great deep burst. These were titanic underground chambers filled with water, not volcanoes.
The video answers why it slid.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You seem to be unaware that the hydroplate theory is highly predictive...
The online book is packed with predictions, take a look if you get the chance...
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Those are produced in the same way as Hovind's predictions: he observes a phenomenon, and claims, in retrospect, that that's what he should observe. Therefore, his theory is right. Hydroplate "theory" falls far short of explaining anything close to all the phenomena we see in geology.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Some of the predictions haven't been observed yet. You can see the online book for numerous examples (especially in regards to asteroids).
What specifically doesn't the hydroplate theory explain?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"If you think I meant that modern flash floods should cause erosion on the scale of the Grand Canyon for the Great Flood to be correct..."
I never said that. The issue seems to be your think the Great Flood itself formed the Grand Canyon, which is simply not the claim.
"You're basing this claim on the existence of lakes for which there is no evidence..."
Among other things, you can see where their shorelines once were!
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"The issue seems to be your thing the Great Flood itself formed the Grand Canyon, which is simply not the claim." That is, in fact, the claim. This video isn't directed at your claims specifically, and if you think that creationists have only claimed what you do, then you really are an idiot. The vast majority of creationists have stated that the Flood itself carved the Grand Canyon; see Thunderf00t.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Where can you see their shorelines? I can't find any information on them besides creationist websites. If this is part of modern geology, why do no geologists have any information on their location?
diagoras54 2 years ago
You're probably not looking hard enough. The issue is creationists make the biggest deal out of them, so most searches yield their works. However, an example of a non-creationist mention of them would be a paper called "Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River", by Norman Meek and John Douglass. A map of where they were can be seen at tinyurl/lakehopi.
Also, you seem to be ruling out a priori that a creationist can be a geologist!
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You are essentially quote-mining this paper. It doesn't say that the Grand Canyon was formed 4000 years ago by a lake overflow; it says that lakes overflowin between 10 and 4 million years ago caused the already-existing canyon to develop still further. You are simply a liar, and I won't stand for it any further.
You claim that the shores of Hopi and Grand Lakes can be seen, yet the only evidence you have is a map produced by Walt Brown.
diagoras54 2 years ago
That's not evidence, and if you think it is then you really are an idiot. If it's so easy to find these shores, show me photographs.
I never said that creationists can't be geologists, and vice versa. I've simply never found a practicing geologist with a degree from an accredited university who claimed the Earth was 6000 years old. Strawman.
diagoras54 2 years ago
You can zoom out and see at tinyurl/pe4dda
Ah, I see. It wasn't a strawman, I just misunderstood you. There are plenty like that. Steve Austin, for example.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
How does a satellite picture of the Grand Canyon prove that there was a lake there? I see no evidence of lake shores.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Comment removed
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
You need to zoom out a bit. You can use the other picture I posted as a reference for where to look for that evidence.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
I never said it was a creationist paper. What I was saying was that is was an example of a non-creationist source that talks about the lakes.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
I never said it was a creationist paper either. But it absolutely does not confirm your theory.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I didn't say it confirmed my theory. All I said was that it was an anticreationist source that mentions the lakes.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
The last I heard of anyone claiming that is Ray Comfort in the 90's.
What, specifically, of Thunderf00t's?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
The video for which Thunderf00t is best known is one in which he refutes the hypothesis presented by VenomFangX that the Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes by the Flood, not a lake overflowing. If you think he's just an internet kook, and not a serious creationist, Kent Hovind, Answers in Genesis and numerous have, and still do, espouse this same theory. Are you really so mind-numbingly arrogant that you can't even recognize that other creationists don't agree with you?
diagoras54 2 years ago
Hovind doesn't support that. In a CSE newsletter, they talked about the lakes spilling over to form the Grand Canyon. AiG hosts materials by people who accept many different theories, but could I have a source that they espouse it...?
Also, why should I care if other creationists disagree? Not all evolutionists agree on how the Grand Canyon was formed.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Creationist organizations like CSE and AiG have changed their positions after having their hypotheses dismantled so many times that their current positions are nothing at all like what they originally espoused. The Discovery Institute, for example, stopped supporting intelligent design after the Dover Trial.
diagoras54 2 years ago
What does this have to do with the validity of the hydroplate theory...?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"...but don't explain how rain falling..."
I'm not aware of any prominent creationist who claims the Flood was caused solely by rain. The Bible doesn't even support that! It says, in Genesis 7:11 - "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
There is no evidence whatsoever of these springs, or, for that matter, that the core of the Earth is filled with water.
diagoras54 2 years ago
See the video for this comment as well.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"If creationists are right, we should see a uniform layer..."
Why?
"They also fail to provide a source for the sediment..."
The bursting of the fountains of the Great Deep.
"Mountains around the Colorado Plateau show no signs of mass erosion..."
Is he assuming the mountains were there before the Flood...?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Pour some water into a bucket, add some sand, and mix it up. See what happens when you let it settle. It takes more than one inundation to cause stratification.
"The bursting of the fountains of the Great Deep." If that's the case, where are the enormous gaps in the Earth's crust? And for that matter, how did that material get from the bottom of the deepest ocean up onto a plateau thousands of feet above sea level?
diagoras54 2 years ago
"Is he assuming the mountains were there before the Flood...?" Yes. That is one of the principles of Biblical literalism. God created everything in six days and never made anything new after. If they weren't there, where did they come from? Why were the mountains raised but not the plateau?
diagoras54 2 years ago
See the link to the video in my previous comment. It answers most basic questions like these...which you should already know if you're making a video on the subject :|
Shame on you! e_e
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
"Pour some water into a bucket, add some sand, and mix it up."
Your problem seems to be a lack of understand of current Flood models. The simple experiment that can be found at tinyurl/floodexperiment demonstrates it far better.
"If that's the case, where are the enormous gaps in the Earth's crust? And for that matter, how did that material get from the bottom of the deepest ocean up onto a plateau thousands of feet above sea level?"
Take some time to watch tinyurl/c39huh
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
If the best information you can come up with comes from the Center for Scientific Creation, then you've already failed to make your point. If you can't provide a peer-reviewed source by an expert in geology (not a mechanical engineer) then your claims are flimsy at best. All of the hypotheses presented in the video and website are based on an enormous number of assumptions for which there is no evidence. A teeter-totter with water jugs hardly counts as a scientific experiment.
diagoras54 2 years ago
It doesn't even answer all of the problems with stratification, such as why are all the fossils of some species found in specific layers, but in no others. Species are confined to particular layers, and there's no way wave motion could separate bones that precisely. Provide a source from an expert in his or her field which has been peer-reviewed and clearly shows that all of modern geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics and archaeology is wrong, or go away.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Keep in mind it was a response to you telling me to fill a bucket with dirt and water. Nobody's claiming that it's an advanced experiment. It just demonstrates the basic principles involved.
"...such as why are all the fossils of some species found in specific layers..."
Hydrologic sorting. In a scenario like the Flood, the remains, like the sediments, that weren't destroyed could and would be sorted like we see them based on various physical features
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
My experiment just confirms all of the evidence provided by other fields of science. Walt Brown's experiment is the ONLY source for his claims. All he did was create an experiment and modify the conditions until he achieved the results that he expected, and then said that those were the conditions that must have existed at the time of the Flood; therefore, there was a flood. There is no evidence of any of the things he claims.
diagoras54 2 years ago
Hydrologic sorting explains nothing. I explained that in one of my videos. The chances of EVERY animal of EVERY species being sorted into separate layers are so small that the only way for it to happen is by saying "god did it".
diagoras54 2 years ago
Nobody's claiming that everything in all of those fields is wrong. The hydroplate theory is part of modern geology (and several other fields).
Also, archaeology is decisively in my favor on this point. Cultures from Hawaii to China all have tales about a worldwide flood, often with a divine cause and/or one family of eight surviving on a boat. Why is that, and why would they agree on minor details such as that?
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
The hydroplate theory has nothing to do with modern geology. Provide a single source from a peer-reviewed geology journal which says that the hydroplate theory is correct. In fact, the hydroplate theory contradicts all of the basic principles of physics and geology, and just raises further questions. What caused the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to rise so abruptly? How could a solid crust move? How did the water end up under the crust in the first place? Eventually the only answer is "god did it".
diagoras54 2 years ago
Brown isn't a specialist in any of those fields. He's a mechanical engineer, and the only source for that is his own website, which calls even that claim into question. His has no specialized knowledge of these issues, and his hypotheses haven't been confirmed by any real scientists. They've even been discredited by other creationists.
Archaeology shows civilization continuing without disruption for 10000 years; what you're talking about is anthropology.
diagoras54 2 years ago
If you can't get even that right, why should I listen to you? Besides, floods are quite common, and chances are that some of them would have survivors. In terms of specific details, how many of those stories are exactly the same? What you're saying is like claiming that two people are related because they have the same eye colour. Vague similarities are evidence of nothing. More importantly, human testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially when it's been passed down hundreds of generations.
diagoras54 2 years ago
"My friend's friend's friend's friend's uncle's neighbour knows a guy who lived through the flood." Now multiply that hundreds of times over. Would you accept that as valid evidence? We don't have a single contemporary written source from a survivor of the Flood.
diagoras54 2 years ago
I'd accept it as valid if everyone in the world was claiming it!
We do have a source like that, actually. Parts of Genesis were written by Noah and/or his family members.
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Everyone in the world isn't claiming it, and it would still fail as anything but hearsay.
If you actually think that parts of Genesis were written by ANYONE mentioned in it then you know nothing about the historicity of the Bible. Not even the most religious Biblical historians claim that the first five books of the Bible were written earlier than 1100 BC. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP.
diagoras54 2 years ago
We know of several of these flood stories from archaeology. As such, calling it archaeology is appropriate.
Floods are quite common, but why would that make anyone start talking about a worldwide flood after which eight related survivors repopulated the world? These aren't "vague similarities" I'm talking about!
As far as which cultures say what, you can see a chart at tinyurl/FloodLegendsChart
ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji 2 years ago
Calling it archaeology is not appropriate if the sources are modern folk tales.
Stories become blown out of proportion over time, especially with thousands of retellings. Do you think the events of the Iliad are historical? The more importance attached to a story, the more fantastic it beomes over time. I can't find a single flood story in which eight related people survive; the only similarities are that a small number of people survived a great flood.
diagoras54 2 years ago