Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Subduction Zone]

Still waiting for you to respond to my scientific references that document your selective dishonest interpretation of citations without any knowledge of the science involved.

I was hoping for a response to my second attempt when it came to explaining to @YoursTrue how she misunderstood the article about volcanoes and sediments. I especially liked my last line and was disappointed that there was no response.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lava does not carry or deposit sediment. This fact was clearly described in detail in previous posts.

Lava is molten magma ejected to the surface when it hardens it is dark brown to black fine textured rock called basalt. Weathering over many years usually tens of thousands of years results in sediment..

"Sediment is carried from the volcano to the sea to be stored for a time in subaqueous borderland environments, and then remobilized and carried into deep marine basins (Fisher, 1984). During times of quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and volcanic epiclastic sediment are remobilized by similar flow transformations (Walton, 1979)."

 

[YoursTrue]

Great get some sleep and when you're rested you can explain to me how if things are just as bad nowadays it wasn't a failure.

Actually it's 4 failures if the Bible is factual (that I know of), he failed at the very beginning when half the angels he created rebelled, then Adam and Eve went off the rails condemning all of mankind, then the Noah debacle and finally when he sent his son down to sort things out.

I don't question in the same sense you do because God is God and I am not. I do not understand or know everything. Our view of what happened is different. So obviously people will have different opinions of things. That you say some angels rebelled is something I agree with, yet I have seen claims here that angels do not have free will. Anyway, so be it, and I hope things go well for you. Please do not expect me to respond to every claim you or others make.

 

[exchemist]

"Sediment is carried from the volcano to the sea to be stored for a time in subaqueous borderland environments, and then remobilized and carried into deep marine basins (Fisher, 1984). During times of quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and volcanic epiclastic sediment are remobilized by similar flow transformations (Walton, 1979)."

Yes, carried by water, not by lava.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Sediment is carried from the volcano to the sea to be stored for a time in subaqueous borderland environments, and then remobilized and carried into deep marine basins (Fisher, 1984). During times of quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and volcanic epiclastic sediment are remobilized by similar flow transformations (Walton, 1979)."

Be careful with your terminology. You really mix things up, because of your lack of knowledge in geology or any other science for that matter. If you use 'pyroclastic sediment,' like volcanic ash, it is not just 'sediment,' and it does not involve what you described before. What you cite here is OK,, but you need to put things in the context of the world picture of volcanics in the billions of years of the Geologic history of the Earth.

I can provide more detailed references concerning the role of water in the different types of volcanoes if it would help.

There are Lava volcanoes, Ash Volcanoes, and low-temperature hydrothermal volcanoes often involving mud, gases, and local recycled sources of seawater and groundwater. There is water and a lot of gases involved in volcanics. Lava volcanoes carry up deep water and seawater when they erupt. This deep water is carried down in the subduction zones to return to volcanic eruptions. Most of the volcanoes of the World involve the circle of fire parallel to the subduction zones of the Pacific. Or Hot spots like Hawaii and Iceland. All this involves the recycling of Earth's material and water on a grand scale driven by deeper convection currents in the mantle.

I am confused by your mixing things up, You need to get more to your point. None of this has any relevance to the literal impossibility of a world flood described in the Bible

 

[John53]

Please do not expect me to respond to every claim you or others make.

Sure and you should do the same and apologise to those you've harassed.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Miller Urey experiment was a contrived experiment, obviously needing testtubes and electricity for starters.

Again . . . does not address the current research and knowledge of science concerning abiogenesis, which I will go into more detail in the thread:

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

In a thread on Noah's Arc the inability to respond coherently to the impossibility of the flood and the construction of the Arc it was decided to change the topic to Abiogenesis loaded with all the blue smoke and mirrors and 'arguing from ignorance' posts. Like all science, there are unanswered...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't question in the same sense you do because God is God and I am not. I do not understand or know everything. Our view of what happened is different. So obviously people will have different opinions of things. That you say some angels rebelled is something I agree with, yet I have seen claims here that angels do not have free will. Anyway, so be it, and I hope things go well for you. Please do not expect me to respond to every claim you or others make.

What I want is for you to defend how you use scientific references concerning volcanism and the water of the Earth. I have corrected your terminology problems and selectively clipped references the best I can and made things crystal clear with references to the nature of water in and on the Earth and you do not respond.

The bottom line is virtually all the water on the surface, atmosphere, and in the crust of the earth is geologically recycled over billions of years due to Continental Drift driven by convection current in the mantle The water world was due to the flatness of the land and the shallowness of the seas without the high mountains and deep ocean trenches at the beginning of Continental Drift. The simple physics of the distribution of water on the Earth then and now should be overwhelmingly obvious.

 

[Astrophile]

Unfortunately you have it wrong. Sedimentary volcanism is described in the Dictionary of Geology & Mineralogy as the expelling, extruding or breaking through of overlying formations by a mixture of sediment, water, and gas driven by the gas under pressure.

What you call 'sedimentary volcanism' is not the same as true volcanism. True volcanism is the eruption of molten rocks (lava, or rock above its melting temperature); sedimentary volcanism, which geologists are familiar with, is the intrusion or expulsion of a suspension of sedimentary material below its melting temperature and water, driven, as the Dictionary says, by gas under pressure. Sedimentary volcanism produces mud volcanoes, sedimentary dykes, and outbursts of water and sand from fissures during earthquakes.

There are resemblances in the eruption mechanism of true volcanism and sedimentary volcanism, since both are driven by gas under pressure, but that does not make lava (molten rock) a sedimentary rock.

Seems you can't offer anything close to understanding that the earth was surrounded by water many, many years ago and no land was showing? Yes, there are times even now when I laugh at comments...hey, have a good one. I'm sorry about the suffering you had to endure, truly.

Yes, there is evidence that about 3.5-3.3 billion years ago (during the Archaean era) there were no continents and the Earth was effectively a water world. There may have been small volcanic islands, but there were no continental land masses. However, U-Pb dating of zircons from Archean sedimentary rocks in India - Earth's 1st continents arose hundreds of millions of years earlier than thought and https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105746118 - has found evidence that the continental cratons began to emerge from the global ocean around 3.3-3.2 billion years ago, more than half the age of the Earth.

The water-world stage of Earth history therefore has nothing to do either with Noah's flood or with the creation story in Genesis 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Sediment is carried from the volcano to the sea to be stored for a time in subaqueous borderland environments, and then remobilized and carried into deep marine basins (Fisher, 1984). During times of quiescent volcanism, smaller volumes of pyroclastic, hydroclastic and volcanic epiclastic sediment are remobilized by similar flow transformations (Walton, 1979)."

The volcanic ash is not sediment. But guess what? It erodes very easily. Sediment is made from eroded rocks and minerals. It is not the rock itself. Do you understand this now?

 

[YoursTrue]

What you call 'sedimentary volcanism' is not the same as true volcanism. True volcanism is the eruption of molten rocks (lava, or rock above its melting temperature); sedimentary volcanism, which geologists are familiar with, is the intrusion or expulsion of a suspension of sedimentary material below its melting temperature and water, driven, as the Dictionary says, by gas under pressure. Sedimentary volcanism produces mud volcanoes, sedimentary dykes, and outbursts of water and sand from fissures during earthquakes.

There are resemblances in the eruption mechanism of true volcanism and sedimentary volcanism, since both are driven by gas under pressure, but that does not make lava (molten rock) a sedimentary rock.

Yes, there is evidence that about 3.5-3.3 billion years ago (during the Archaean era) there were no continents and the Earth was effectively a water world. There may have been small volcanic islands, but there were no continental land masses. However, U-Pb dating of zircons from Archean sedimentary rocks in India - Earth's 1st continents arose hundreds of millions of years earlier than thought and https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105746118 - has found evidence that the continental cratons began to emerge from the global ocean around 3.3-3.2 billion years ago, more than half the age of the Earth.

The water-world stage of Earth history therefore has nothing to do either with Noah's flood or with the creation story in Genesis 1.

The discussion of sediment was not connected to this discussion of Noah and the flood in Genesis, it was in relation to dating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The discussion of sediment was not connected to this discussion of Noah and the flood in Genesis, it was in relation to dating.

Right, and you still do not understand what sediment is. Volcanic ash is not sediment. It is not made up of sediment. it can easily be eroded anb that material can become sediment. But guess what happens when it is deposited. It will have been eroded and transported, so the individual minerals and pieces will be more rounded. It will also have been sorted to a degree. The finest particles will not be deposited with the coarsest. So one can determine if one is looking at an original ash deposit or ash that has been eroded and redeposited. If one is looking at the original ash deposit it is very easy to date it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right, and you still do not understand what sediment is. Volcanic ash is not sediment. It is not made up of sediment. it can easily be eroded anb that material can become sediment. But guess what happens when it is deposited. It will have been eroded and transported, so the individual minerals and pieces will be more rounded. It will also have been sorted to a degree. The finest particles will not be deposited with the coarsest. So one can determine if one is looking at an original ash deposit or ash that has been eroded and redeposited. If one is looking at the original ash deposit it is very easy to date it.

Some, a bit older sources, describe volcanic ash as pyroclastic sediment after it was deposited, but it is important to differentiate this from sediment that is the result of erosion over time usually taking hundreds of thousands to millions of years or more at minimum to weather and break down rocks to sediment. There are sediments from metamorphic rocks like Quartzite that contain grains of sand from older metamorphic rock made up of grains of even older sediments that weathered from older rocks. The sequence record of these rocks made up of weathered grains of older rocks is dated with a history of more than a billion years. Some of the oldest rocks known contain zircons in the oldest sediment grains found on earth4.2–4.3 billion years, and we know from meteorites that the Earth is not much older at 4.56 billion years.

Zircon Chronology: Dating the Oldest Material on Earth | AMNH

Zircon Chronology: Dating the Oldest Material on Earth​

Part of the Earth Inside and Out Curriculum Collection.
Paul Mueller with student Stephanie Ingle by a cliff in Stillwater, Montana.
Photo courtesy of Paul Mueller ,
What are the oldest rocks on Earth, and how did they form? The material that holds the greatest insight into these fundamental questions, because it can contain a record of some of the earliest history of the Earth, is a mineral named zircon. For example, a few grains of zircon found in the early 1990s in a sandstone from western Australia dates back 4.2–4.3 billion years, and we know from meteorites that the Earth is not much older at 4.56 billion years. Geology professors Darrell Henry of Louisiana State University and Paul Mueller of the University of Florida are expert practitioners of several techniques that can extract precise age information from zircons. They’re searching for some of the oldest rocks in the continental crust, for the zircons within them, and for the clues the zircons contain about the formation of the planet.

Originally formed by crystallization from a magma or in metamorphic rocks, zircons are so durable and resistant to chemical attack that they rarely go away. They may survive many geologic events, which can be recorded in rings of additional zircon that grow around the original crystal like tree rings. Like a tiny time capsule, the zircon records these events, each one of which may last hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, the core of the zircon itself remains unchanged, and preserves the chemical characteristics of the rock in which it originally crystallized.

 

[YoursTrue]

I did, and what happened 3 billion years ago has literally nothing to do with the Flood narrative. Remember the ark did end up on land at the end of 40 days.

It has to do with considerations about the Flood, since some have said there isn't enough water to inundate the earth entirely. But there is, according to the Scriptures, water from above, on the surface, and below, which is said to have been unleashed. Are you sure the ark ended up on land at the end of the 40 days of deluge?

 

[shunyadragon]

It has to do with considerations about the Flood, since some have said there isn't enough water to inundate the earth entirely. But there is, according to the Scriptures, water from above, on the surface, and below, which is said to have been unleashed. Are you sure the ark ended up on land at the end of the 40 days of deluge?

It has been demonstrated that in recent geologic history, there is not enough water to cover the Earth, because of the mountains and deep ocean trenches. Actually, this is true for the past 2.6-3.0 billion years or so after Continental drift resulted in mountains and deep ocean trenches.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is known that there are multiple pathways to obtain the same molecules.

Obtaining molecules through mindless natural methods, provides no explanation as to how those same molecules arranged themselves in orderly ways to effect self-replication and other complex interactions!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obtaining molecules through mindless natural methods, provides no explanation as to how those same molecules arranged themselves in orderly ways to effect self-replication and other complex interactions!

There is no "arranging themselves".
Chemical reactions result in molecules.
Multiple chemical reactions in multiple different conditions can, and do, result in the same molecules as output.

There's no more to it then that in chemistry.

Does H2O "arrange itself"?
You should cut back on the strawmen.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obtaining molecules through mindless natural methods, provides no explanation as to how those same molecules arranged themselves in orderly ways to effect self-replication and other complex interactions!

Of course, molecules do not arrange themselves, Science does have explanations of how molecules are arranged in a given environment by Natural Laws.

Not the subject of this thread. It appears you have nothing constructive to offer here.

Abiogenesis discoveries and research

In a thread on Noah's Arc the inability to respond coherently to the impossibility of the flood and the construction of the Arc it was decided to change the topic to Abiogenesis loaded with all the blue smoke and mirrors and 'arguing from ignorance' posts. Like all science, there are unanswered...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[gnostic]

The Miller Urey experiment was a contrived experiment, obviously needing testtubes and electricity for starters.

You have just proven that you are absolute science illiterate, YoursTrue. Not only you are incompetent with biology, you are utterly clueless to science of chemistry and physics.

experiments are observation of evidence in laboratory environments, true, but they are still physical evidence, and often they matched the evidence that exist outside the laboratories. So the lab and non-lab evidence would often verify with each other.

so just because the Miller-Urey experiment occurred in the laboratory in 1952, doesn’t it make less of evidence. So your argument against such experiments are pathetically desperate and weak.

Beside that the chemical reactions in this experiment, although controlled, the chemical reactions are still natural processes, not magic or supernatural like that of the creation of Adam through transformation of non-living dust into a living “fully-grown” human being. In the case of Adam, that can only happen in myth or fairytale.

Also myth is the creation of Eve. You cannot naturally transform a rib in one moment, and fully-grown woman in the next moment.

I have noticed that some creationists here have argued that this is act of “cloning”. But apparently they don’t understand cloning, because for Eve to be a “clone” of Adam, Eve would have to be a man, not a woman.

All I see from every creationists, are apologetic excuses and, ignorant or fanciful claims with no sense of logic or reality. They have offer no alternative explanation of mechanism, just the “God did it” superstition. Not only creationists cannot present evidence to support their claims, they cannot even present some falsifiable hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obtaining molecules through mindless natural methods, provides no explanation as to how those same molecules arranged themselves in orderly ways to effect self-replication and other complex interactions!

Perhaps if you were clearer you could get the answers you seek. What do you mean by "arranged themselves"? Are you saying that it is impossible for molecules to arrange themselves into an orderly manner? They do that all of the time. It is called "crystallization" when that occurs. What exact process of abiogenesis do you think is impossible? I don't want to put words in your mouth which is why I am asking for an explanation from you rather than making my own.