In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[Wuwei]

Creation science is a misnomer. Science does not assume a result they want on such a biblically grandiose scale and then cherry pick remotely relevant science to try to justify their preordained conclusion.

 

[WinterBorn]

As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.

The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.

Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.

You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.

No, they are not. Save as a cataclysmic event that took tens of millions of years.

Oh, come on! You can't really believe that.

The Bible says otherwise, and has never been proven wrong. Believe what you like. I believe Gods word.

Besides the myth of the global flood, there is the story about the sun stopping in the sky so a battle could continue.

If the Earth suddenly stopped spinning, the atmosphere would continue. At the poles there would be little difference. But at the equator the atmosphere would be moving at around 1,100 mph. It would scour everything except bedrock clean away.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation.

I'm referring to the coastline of the Black Sea.

Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time

Yeah, a few thousand years....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no sea level rise that is measurable. T

Uh...what? That contradicts everything I read. Where are you getting this?

 

[westwall]

As the continental ice sheets melt they expose more surface area, the more surface area the quicker the melt. You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation. Take a look at a map that shows the undersea land forms. Take a look at the continental shelf, that is where the people lived. Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time, but it was inexorable. They would set up a village, and the next year they had to move it again. And they had to do that for 10 to 20 generations.

The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.

Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.

You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.

No, they are not. Save as a cataclysmic event that took tens of millions of years.

Oh, come on! You can't really believe that.

The Bible says otherwise, and has never been proven wrong. Believe what you like. I believe Gods word.

I don't "believe" anything. I OBSERVE. What I can tell you is that in terms of history the Bible is fairly close to what we know to be factual. In terms of science however it is completely inaccurate. That is to be expected considering it was written by people who had no concept of a cause and effect world. The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is the words of men, who wrote those accounts tens, and even hundreds, and in a couple of instance thousands, of years after the events occurred.

 

[watchingfromafar]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.

I believe the ocean did not rise to the top of these mountains but rather the land at the top of these mountains had been pushed up over time due to land mass collisions.

 

[westwall]

You're going backwards as well, the coastline shrinks in a flooding situation.

I'm referring to the coastline of the Black Sea.

Look how far they had to travel to escape the encroaching ocean. Yes, it took time

Yeah, a few thousand years....

There is no sea level rise that is measurable. T

Uh...what? That contradicts everything I read. Where are you getting this?

It's called observed science. You are relying on fictional "data" created by computer models. In the real world, there has been no measurable sea level rise in well over a decade. What was being measured was tiny, equating to a few millimeters per year. However, when one compares various points around the world through the magic of photographic evidence it becomes quite plain that whatever sea level rise over the last 100 years have been so small as to be undetectable in photographs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

That was just the most recent supercontinent. The continents have broken up and fused many times over the history of the planet.

 

[westwall]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

 

[Syriusly]

Creation science is a misnomer. Science does not assume a result they want on such a biblically grandiose scale and then cherry pick remotely relevant science to try to justify their preordained conclusion.

Yep- thats why I laughed at his source.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's called observed science. You are relying on fictional "data" created by computer models. In the real world, there has been no measurable sea level rise in well over a decade.

Nah, that's some bullshit you just made up. Here is an article on the observed sea level rise in precisely place you just said there was no sea level rise:
Louisiana Wetlands Sea-Level Rise Four Times the Global Average - UConn Today

 

[westwall]

It's called observed science. You are relying on fictional "data" created by computer models. In the real world, there has been no measurable sea level rise in well over a decade.

Nah, that's some bullshit you just made up. Here is an article on the observed sea level rise in precisely place you just said there was no sea level rise:
Louisiana Wetlands Sea-Level Rise Four Times the Global Average - UConn Today

I guess you missed this rather important part of the study. Here's a hint SUBSIDENCE is loss of material due to reduced silt load. It has nothing to do with sea level rise. That's the problem with people who don't understand science. You hear something, but don't actually understand what it means. I just educated you...

"The researchers analyzed measurements of shallow subsidence rates at 274 sites across the coast and combined these with published GPS-measurements of deeper subsidence rates."



"Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence is a global problem and, in the United States, more than 17,000 square miles in 45 States, an area roughly the size of New Hampshire and Vermont combined, have been directly affected by subsidence.

The principal causes are aquifer-system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydrocompaction, natural compaction, sinkholes, and thawing permafrost. More than 80 percent of the identified subsidence in the Nation is a consequence of our exploitation of underground water, and the increasing development of land and water resources threatens to exacerbate existing land-subsidence problems and initiate new ones. In many areas of the arid Southwest, and in more humid areas underlain by soluble rocks such as limestone, gypsum, or salt, land subsidence is an often- overlooked environmental consequence of our land- and water-use practices."

USGS Groundwater Information: Land Subsidence

 

[watchingfromafar]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

 

[RWNJ]

The flood was a global event. The entire surface of the Earth was covered by water in a very short time. How do we know this? Well, we have found fossils of sea life on Mt. Everest. That means that it was once under water. It probably wasn't as tall as it is now, because Everest itself was a product of the flood. Few people realize just how cataclysmic an event the flood was. It changed the face of the Earth forever.

Yes, it was indeed a global event, but no, the entire surface of the Earth was not covered by water. That is a physical impossibility. Once upon a time it was indeed a water world, but through the "magic" of plate tectonics the continents have risen from the depths, and once terrestrial life became a thing, the possibility of ever covering the whole planet with water was a thing of the past. Figure that happened about 1.8-1.9 billion years ago. From that time on there has always been a land mass that the ocean could no longer inundate.

You are mistaken. The oceanic trenches and the formation of mountains are the result of a cataclysmic event. There is plenty of geological evidence of large deposits of sediment that span the entire Earth. Such deposits can only be explained by large quantities of water in a short period of time. As I mentioned earlier, before we had deep ocean trenches and tall mountains, there was enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of over one mile.

No, they are not. Save as a cataclysmic event that took tens of millions of years.

Oh, come on! You can't really believe that.

The Bible says otherwise, and has never been proven wrong. Believe what you like. I believe Gods word.

I don't "believe" anything. I OBSERVE. What I can tell you is that in terms of history the Bible is fairly close to what we know to be factual. In terms of science however it is completely inaccurate. That is to be expected considering it was written by people who had no concept of a cause and effect world. The Bible is NOT the word of God. It is the words of men, who wrote those accounts tens, and even hundreds, and in a couple of instance thousands, of years after the events occurred.

What did the Bible get wrong? Give me an example?

 

[WinterBorn]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

I believe the ocean did not rise to the top of these mountains but rather the land at the top of these mountains had been pushed up over time due to land mass collisions.

Plate tectonics explains the fossils on Everest, as I have said before.

 

[RWNJ]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

 

[watchingfromafar]

I agree that the Colorado river cut the Grand Canyon but I must add there was a much larger flow of water running down the canyon at the time. Which marks the "great flood".

Weather conditions during the ice ages also increased the amount of water in the Colorado River drainage system. The ancestral Colorado River responded by cutting its channel faster and deeper.

The base level and course of the Colorado River (or its ancestral equivalent) changed 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and lowered the river's base level (its lowest point). This increased the rate of erosion and cut nearly all of the Grand Canyon's current depth by 1.2 million years ago. The terraced walls of the canyon were created by differential erosion.[18]

Between 100,000 and 3 million years ago, volcanic activity deposited ash and lava over the area which at times completely obstructed the river. These volcanic rocks are the youngest in the canyon.
Grand Canyon - Wikipedia

 

[westwall]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

 

[westwall]

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

I am sorry but just because you think that is what happened; that is what happened. You have your views and I have mine.
There are people who believe we evolved from monkeys while at the same time there are still monkeys climbing trees today. What happened, did they miss the train and were left behind?

Yes, they did.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

There are a couple of things you need to consider. In early earth there were not two or three continents, there was just one and it is called Pangaea.

Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Epoch (some 299 million to 273 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Epoch (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea
Pangaea is a hypothetical supercontinent that included all current land masses, believed to have been in existence before the continents broke apart during the Triassic and Jurassic Periods.
Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Pangaea_continents.svg/290px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

The second thing to keep in mind is that sea shells have been found on Mt. Everest.

Fossilized sea life lies atop every major mountain range on earth—far above sea level and usually far from the nearest body of water. Attempts to explain “seashells on mountaintops” have generated controversy for centuries.a
View attachment 176501 View attachment 176501
An early explanation was that a global flood covered these mountains, allowing clams and other sea life to “crawl” far and high. However, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote,b under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains, so others said that some sea bottoms sank, leaving adjacent seafloors (loaded with sea creatures) relatively high—what we today call mountains. How such large subterranean voids formed to allow this sinking was never explained. Still others proposed that sea bottoms rose to become mountains. The mechanisms, forces, and energy required to push up mountains were also never explained. Because elevations on earth change slowly, some wondered if sea bottoms could rise miles into the air, perhaps over millions of years. However, mountaintops, which experience destructive freezing and thawing cycles, erode relatively rapidly—and so should fossils slowly lifted by them. Also, mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocksc—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.d
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129. Seashells on Mountaintops

As far as the great flood is concerned, there is plenty of visual evidence that proves it ocurred.
View attachment 176503 View attachment 176504

None of the land forms you show in the pictures is from the great flood. The Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado River as the Colorado Plateau rose from underneath it. Monument Valley is mainly cut by wind. The Cutler Red Siltstone is very friable and the wind can have dramatic impact over a very short period of time as it erodes the Cutler, which then destabilizes the de Chelly sandstone which fractures and falls to the valley floor.

Once again, these are well known geologic processes that have been described in great detail.

It did not take millions of years for the Grand Canyon to form. I have seen, in person, where the layers of the Grand Canyon...layers that you claim took millions of years, were bent 90 degrees. How do you explain this? Rock does not bend. That means that those layers were deposited at the same time, then the Earth buckled, bending the still malleable layers.

Yes, rock does bend.

Here's a old bench that is sagging thanks to gravity. You might want to rethink your position.

I can't remember what the geological process is called, but I remember watching Discovery channel one time when they were talking about geology and the earth's crust. They showed how plates rubbing against each other could actually make ripples in the rock layers.