Evidence of the Great Flood has been found; or not?

[Milton Platt]

The wind would have blown the landscape flat & not leaving columns of soil of the same kind.



I'm not totally sure about the velocity required or the time line. What I am sure of is it did occur & the evidence has been provided.



No I am not. Please provide your evidence



No I am not. You have not provided any evidence that the river is flowing at the same rate.

I assume you are a biblical believer and assuming this I am puzzled as to why you are trying to contradict the possibility of this being evidence of the great flood.

Is my "assumption" wrong? -

1. The wind would not have blown the rocks flat. Wind erosion works in the same manner as water erosion. softer layers erode faster.
2. You are assuming the topography was not already flat at some point in history.
3. I never said the river was flowing at the same rate. Only that it is still flowing.
4. You provided only photos, which are evidence that the formations exist. You have not provided evidence of your assertion.
5. I do not wish to go through the years of geological evidence available readily in textbooks and online. Here is a great source for you to begin reading about all of the available evidence:
The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs When you have scientific refutations in hand for this evidence, please start a thread and post it.

Thanks.

Edit: I see that I did say that the rock was being cut at the same rate.....That most certainly is not something I can know. But neither can you.

 

[james dixon]

1. The wind would not have blown the rocks flat. Wind erosion works in the same manner as water erosion. softer layers erode faster..

I agree
except the oceans are flat in most part.

2. You are assuming the topography was not already flat at some point in history..

The heights' of rock/soil type layers are at the same elevation; as in "flat"

3. I never said the river was flowing at the same rate. Only that it is still flowing..

Which does not contradict my statement

4. You provided only photos, which are evidence that the formations exist. You have not provided evidence of your assertion..

I was hoping you were going to do that?

5. I do not wish to go through the years of geological evidence available readily in textbooks and online. Here is a great source for you to begin reading about all of the available evidence:..

Ok

The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs When you have scientific refutations in hand for this evidence, please start a thread and post it..

This discussion/debate is about the "Great Flood".

something I can know. But neither can you.

Ok -

 

[Milton Platt]

I agree
except the oceans are flat in most part.

Actually the ocean is curved, because the earth is a sphere. But I've been on a vessel in the ocean and flat is not a word I would use to describe it. The atmosphere is also curved in the exact same manner, because...well....the earth is a SPHERE. But in either case, it does not matter.

The heights' of rock/soil type layers are at the same elevation; as in "flat"

Yes, the rivers cut through a plain over eons. How is that a problem for you? By the way, the rock layers were lain down over long periods of time, as well. Not at the same time.

Which does not contradict my statement

Maybe, but the problem is that it does not make your statement true, either.

I was hoping you were going to do that?



Ok

Let me know when you have an understanding of flood geology...and geology in general. At the moment you do not.



This discussion/debate is about the "Great Flood".

Yes, I assume you mean the Christian one, and not the one already postulated by earlier civilizations.

Which one, the one in the Bible, or the earlier ones in other religious texts?



Ok -

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's more evidence. Can you provide some too?
View attachment 19168

As a professional geologist and geomorphologist these pictures depict normal erosional processes over millions of years, and not erosion by a great flood.

The greatest flaw in the great flood reasoning for these pictures and other bogus claimed evidence for a literal Genesis is the Law of Thermodynamics, and the energy involved in the formation of these sedimentary (marine, wind blown, and alluvial), and igneous formations, metamorphic formations, and the subsequent erosion over millions of years.

There is evidence of local catastrophic floods of known cause, and extent. The best example are the channeled 'scablands' of Washington State that are of known cause of the cyclic collapse of glacial lakes, and have no known extent that could be described as a great flood.

The bottom line is that there is no known geologic evidence for a great flood.

 

[james dixon]

More evidence of a great flood

 

[Jesster]

Here's some more evidence of a great flood

 

[shunyadragon]

More evidence of a great flood

View attachment 19564 View attachment 19562

same problems as previous pictures. Nice photography though. I am a geologist and geomorphologist. None of these depict and evidence o a great flood. Just throwing up beautiful scenic pictures of eroded rock formations without any explanation is cut and paste idiocy.

 

[james dixon]

same problems as previous pictures. Nice photography though. I am a geologist and geomorphologist. None of these depict and evidence o a great flood. Just throwing up beautiful scenic pictures of eroded rock formations without any explanation is cut and paste idiocy.

You say you are looking for evidence?

How about finding sea shells on Mount Everest?

https://tinyurl.com/y9ttrq5a

https://tinyurl.com/y8xlstju

-

 

[james dixon]

.,.,.,., I am a geologist and geomorphologist. None of these depict and evidence o a great flood. Just throwing up beautiful scenic pictures of eroded rock formations without any explanation is cut and paste idiocy.

Then maybe you should consider some refresher courses. I say this with no animosity intended or implied.

But saying it ain't so falls a bit below the mark. Sea shells were found on Mount Everest. Using your education and all please explain this---

https://tinyurl.com/y9ttrq5a

https://tinyurl.com/y8xlstju

-

 

[columbus]

But saying it ain't so falls a bit below the mark. Sea shells were found on Mount Everest. Using your education and all please explain this---

It's explained in the link.

The rock that was once below the ocean is at the top of the mountain now. The rock forming the Mt. Everest was once under the Tethys sea that used to exist between main Asia landmass and small indian tectonic plate. As Indian landmass and Large Asian landmass came closer, the part under the sea got lifted and became the gigantic mountain range we know as Himalayas.

Seeing similar formations in the Rockies was quite interesting to me, as well.
Tom

 

[sayak83]

More evidence of a great flood

View attachment 19564 View attachment 19562

Yet more evidence of the great flood,

 

[sayak83]

Then maybe you should consider some refresher courses. I say this with no animosity intended or implied.

But saying it ain't so falls a bit below the mark. Sea shells were found on Mount Everest. Using your education and all please explain this---

https://tinyurl.com/y9ttrq5a

https://tinyurl.com/y8xlstju

-

20 million years of uplift of sea bed as Indian plate collided with Asia.
The Geological Society

Perhaps you should take an elementary geology class first? No animosity intended or implied.

 

[james dixon]

Yet more evidence of the great flood,

I hope you don't mind, I copied your volcano

Great image .,.,.,..,.,.,.,., -

 

[shunyadragon]

Then maybe you should consider some refresher courses. I say this with no animosity intended or implied.

But saying it ain't so falls a bit below the mark. Sea shells were found on Mount Everest. Using your education and all please explain this---

https://tinyurl.com/y9ttrq5a

https://tinyurl.com/y8xlstju

-

The sea shells found mountains are weathered out on the surface, but continue in limestone formations inside the mountain. The vast limestone formations can only form in shallow seas.