Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

If all the ice in Greenland and Antartica melted there is 70 plus feet right there.

a reply to: Goldfish7471

Did it, though?

Ice core samples say not.

We are all pretty much agreed, for theories about creation of sedimentary layers to hold true, it has to stand up. If you're going to say something broad like "sedimentary layers are created by a single flood," then create them by a single flood.

Please allow a thread interjection to let the OP defend his flood theory across the board. A chance to defend Pangea breaking up in the last 4400 years.

The Grand Canyon Challenge.

Work the biblical narrative into the formation of the layers exposed when the Colorado River eroded away the grand canyon.

Explain how a 4400 year old flood deposited the following formations. Create all this in your time-frame.

web.uri.edu...

Kaibab Limestone: Permian (~270 ma). Shallow marine shelf deposit. Fossiliferous (brachiopods, gastropods, crinoids, bryozoans). Represents the time of maximum eastward transgression of the Kaibab Sea (Condon, 1997). Fossiliferous in nature, with brachiopods, gastropods, crinoids, and bryozoans present. Approximately 300 ft thick.

Toroweap Formation: Permian (~273 ma). Contains of the most diverse rock varieties in the Canyon, i.e. sandstone, mudstone, gypsum, limestone. Originally deposited near the shore of a shallow sea in mudflats and evaporate deposits.

Coconino Sandstone: Permian (~275 ma). Very large scale cross-stratified sandstone. Deposited by aeolian processes and consists of fine, well-sorted quartz grains (Mckee, 1945 and 1979). Thickness varies from 57ft to over 600 ft (Middleton et. al, 2002). Present are fossilized trackways and tail-drag marks of prehistoric reptiles.

Hermit Shale: Permian (~280 ma). Comparatively nonresistant unit of siltstone, mudstone, and sandstone. Thickness varies between 100 ft to 900 ft. Low angle cross-bedding present, as well as poorly-preserved plant fossils (Blakey, 2003). Multiple, ill-preserved plant fossils present.

Supai Group (315-285 ma) Created from oceanic transgressions and regressions, forming alternating conglomerates, siltstones, and sandstones (Blakey, 2003). Fossil examples of amphibians, reptiles, and terrestrial and marine plants present. (Lockley, M. G., and Hunt, A. P., 1995).

Surprise Canyon: Mississippian (~320 ma). Considered a ‘channel fill’ formation of conglomerate, sandstone, limestone and siltstone (South Rim Stratigraphy Map). Deposited atop the horizontal Redwall Limestone. Environments during deposition were most likely a moist and humid with orangey soil similar to soil found in the tropics today. 

Redwall Limestone: Mississippian (~340 ma). Large red cliff-forming unit ranging from 500 ft to 800 ft in thickness. Thin-to-thick bedded limestone. Chert often present. Both its upper and lower contacts are unconformities (Beus, 2003; Mckee and Gutschick, 1969).  Fossils of brachiopods, corals, and trilobites are present. Paleoenvironments of the Redwall Limestone most similar to those of the Surprise Canyon.

Tonto Group: Represents the basal sections of the Paleozoic layers of the Grand Canyon. The Tapeats Sandstone provides the platform upon which less-erosion-resistant layers (Muav Limestone, Bright Angel Shale) are able to rest. Represents a marine transgression series (Rose, 2011).

The Tonto Group has trilobites, brachiopods, and trace fossils of marine life (Lull 1918, and McKee and Resser, 1945)

Muav Limestone: Cambrian (~505 ma). 350-600 ft thick. Light grey, brown, and orange-red limestone. Dolomite and calcareous mudstone also present, which indicates shallow seas and the likely presence of saline lagoons.

Bright Angel Shale: Cambrian (~515 ma). Green and reddish-purple shales and siltstone, interbedded with red-brown sandstone.

Tapeats Sandstone: Cambrian (~525 ma). Highly erosion-resistant red-brown sandstone and conglomerate unit. Paleoenvironments included marine transgression because it is the bottom layer of sandstone, with shale and limestone above.  All were part of a transgressing paleo sea.

If you theory is to be believed a biblical flood should explain all the these successive layers.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Goldfish7471

Did it, though?

Ice core samples say not.

Good point.

So this all powerful God can make a flood 5.5miles above average sea levels but put a iron chariot in his way and he's useless!!!
What does that tell you about this great and powerfull God

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

originally posted by: Kurokage
So this all powerful God can make a flood 5.5miles above average sea levels but put a iron chariot in his way and he's useless!!!
What does that tell you about this great and powerfull God

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

The almighty super powerful God of the Old Testament seems like he had some trouble but at least he created the universe but forgot how to deal with villagers who had chariots of iron. Getting older comes at a price and between the creation of the universe and the events in the valley at least 4.5 billion years passed. Please...give him a break!

a reply to: Goldfish7471

If all the ice in Greenland and Antartica melted there is 70 plus feet right there.

So, to flood the whole of Mount Everest requires flood water 5.5miles above current levels.
5280 feet in a mile.
5.5 x 5280 = 29,040 feet.
Just another 28,970 feet to explain.

That's approximately 414 times more water than in Greenland & Antarctica.

If all the ice in the whole world melted sea level would rise approximately 280 feet.
Just under a fifth of a mile.
Another 5.3 miles to explain.
Or approximately 104 times more than all the ice in the world.

a reply to: Freeborn

Just another 28,970 feet to explain.

Oh, please don't say that. He has an answer for that. And it gives it a segue. Something to focus on and direct the conversation towards again.

And now I fear we might fall into the loop where he tries to drain the transition zone for flood purposes. And then use a study about some unrelated shallow subduction zone under China, with the eclogite and metamorphic inclusions.

Sorry, this thread gives me geoscience PTSD.

a reply to: Degradation33
When I grow tired of a thread but can't keep the impulse to reply under control I just delete it from my MyATS subscription list or you can use the unsubscribe button at the bottom of the thread.

This thread was cool in that a lot of people pointed out multiple things on why it doesn't make sense. There really is nothing more to say, and coop will just copy/paste the same things over and over.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Degradation33
When I grow tired of a thread but can't keep the impulse to reply under control I just delete it from my MyATS subscription list or you can use the unsubscribe button at the bottom of the thread.

This thread was cool in that a lot of people pointed out multiple things on why it doesn't make sense. There really is nothing more to say, and coop will just copy/paste the same things over and over.

But the poster has made so many claims that have been refuted again and again and it has been pointed out to him why his claims are flawed and why his conclusions are so erroneous based on this flawed logic driven by religious faith. At least people on this thread and a few other threads I am participating don't let the propaganda and misinformation to go on.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
But the poster has made so many claims that have been refuted again and again and it has been pointed out to him why his claims are flawed and why his conclusions are so erroneous based on this flawed logic driven by religious faith. At least people on this thread and a few other threads I am participating don't let the propaganda and misinformation to go on.

Yes, this was what many of us have been doing for years. They are not going to stop. They are on a missión from god.

And man said "Let there be bugs" and there were bugs.

All 3 conditions that were done in this experiment were present by Genesis 1:3

I think what atheists fail to see, is that God is not some man hanging out in the cosmos with a long white beard. God is internal, the Great Animating Factor. Humans are the expression.

At some point you just get bored.

ETA: Their very first thread, for good measure.
The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
(Genesis 1:2-3)
Similarly, our current explanation for the dawn of our universe is that there was an inexplicable explosion of light from emptiness - the big bang.

How were these biblical writers able to know this? We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

But they want to be sure you know they are not a bible thumper.

originally posted by: Goldfish7471
If all the ice in Greenland and Antartica melted there is 70 plus feet right there.

Yeah the ice caps would have likely melted during this event, I'll do a thread on that later. Most of the water though came from beneath the earth's surface. Subduction zones in the mantle are now estimated to be about 40% water by weight. Given the immense size of the mantle, this means there is plenty of water to flood Everest multiple times over:

"Our research presents a method that more accurately determines the quantitative composition of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) fluid high H2O (~40 wt.%) and solute (~60 wt.%) contents] released by a slab during deep subduction compared with that detailed in previous studies."

"considerable evidences have been found for supercritical fluid activity in natural rock, especially ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) inclusions. For continental subduction zones, multiphase inclusions that may be related to supercritical fluids have been documented in multiple metamorphic belts worldwide."

link

a reply to: daskakik

I'm officially using it to learn to counter my adversarial personality. My problem has always been backing down when I know I'm right. This is an excellent chance to learn passivity. And to only respond through backhanded or passive-aggressive ways.

I will note my prediction was spot on, and feel satisfied with that as a preemptive answer. I will ignore the pseudoscientific arguments and use that to overpower that urge pushing every bit of me to throw more matter towards the cognitive black hole.

a reply to: Degradation33
Yeah, you either learn to accept you are just wasting time or curb the urge to participate.

With time it gets boring because it is the same dead horse beaten over and over.

Just like the post above yours, the water in the mantle for the nth time, when just on the last page they copped to not having proof of how this water was supposed to be pushed out.

It seems like a weird form of amnesia.

a reply to: cooperton

So you're still taking the bible as a literal book of 'evidence' that proves the flood happen purely because it says so, but the book also says God was less powerful than a mighty Iron chariot? If you believe the parable of the flood to be true then you have to also believe God couldn't drive out the chariots and was less powerful. You can't have it both ways?

You pick and choose snipits of real science fact to help push your pesudo-science rubbish, are you now going to pick and choose the word of God?? The bible is either correct and the word of god passed onto man or wrong and is a made up fairy tale used to control the masses.
I see you ignore anything (not even a typical Cooperton sarcastic insult) that shows the bible to be a false book of myths, is that because if you say one sentence is wrong then your house of cards begins to crumble???

a reply to: daskakik

Just like the post above yours, the water in the mantle for the nth time, when just on the last page they copped to not having proof of how this water was supposed to be pushed out.

It reminds me of a child when they learn a new word but don't know what it means. They just repeat it over and over and respond to aanything with the same word. Is it time to to eat? supercritical fluid activity. Is it time for bed? supercritical fluid activity. Don't forget to prush your teeth? supercritical fluid activity and so on......

originally posted by: Kurokage
The bible is either correct and the word of god passed onto man or wrong and is a made up fairy tale used to control the masses.

It's not one or the other. The Bible is a collection of 73 books: an Old Testament of 46 books (including 7 deuterocanonical books and additional deuterocanonical content in 2 books) and a New Testament of 27 books. The Old Testament and New Testament are very different. They are under different 'covenants' between God and man and are from different time periods.

Some of the 'books' are historical and are supposed to be taken literally. Some are mythological and are 'teaching myths' not to be taken literally. (Noahs Ark, Job, Jonah in the whale, talking snakes, etc). Some are poetry. Some are prophecy. etc etc

Problems with the Old Testament are clear. Exodus, was probably based on a very small exodus event, got exaggerated, etc etc. Genesis is attributed to being written by Moses but it was in fact written hundreds and hundreds of years after Moses existed. Same with the story of Abraham. His story was written probably a thousand years after he was supposed to have lived. In the New Testament, the Jesus gospels were written by followers of the apostles who were first hand witnesses to the events. So there is better historical credibility with those.

But considering that there are 73 books in the Bible, I don't think it's a matter of .. it's all true and from God or it's all false fairy tales. Each book has a different purpose and is to be read in a different manner. And the Noahs Ark story is NOT to be read literally. It's a teaching myth. Most of Christianity understands that.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think for some of the people on here, it is one or the other. To some it is the word of God, no ifs ands or buts about it. Thats why Cooperton believes it as an actual book of history and not a book of parables and myths.
I know you are a believer, and I see nothing wrong in that and I think you've been a great contributor to the thread but the bible is a book of fiction created by men to control people, its that simple. Gnosticism was removed because it promoted personal spiritual knowledge above the proto-orthodox teachings, taking away their power and has nothing to do with worshipping a God.

All Christians should believe the Bible is the word of God..

“From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15–17).

but it's full of contradictions and incorrect statements and shows it's a hodge bodge mix up of stollen tales and fiction.

a reply to: cooperton

Archaeologists, Egyptologists, Geologists, Geophysicists, Petrologists, Liminologists, Sedimentologists, Stratigraphologists, Volcanologists, Geospacial Engineers, Environmental scientists, Mining Engineers, Hydrologists, Glaciologists, Atmospheric Scientists, Meteorologists, Arborists, Chemists, Chemical Engineers, Organic Chemists, Bio Chemists, Biologists, Micro Biologists, Virologists, Oceanographers, Mechanical Engineers, Naval Engineers, Naval Architects, Botanists, Zoologists, Wildlife Biologists, Ornathologists, Ichthyologists, Entomologists, Mathematicians, Historians, Paleontologists, Agriculturists, Agronomists, Geneticists, Ecological Geneticists, animal geneticists, epigeneticists, Animal Reproductive Physiologists, Animal Pathologists, Anthropologists, Biological Anthropologists, Linguistic Anthropologists, Molecular Biologists, Pathologists, Mycologists, Sociologists, Human Geographers, Linguists, Theologians, Cognitive Scientists, Malacologists, Carcinologists, and most of Christianity disagree with you.

originally posted by: Kurokage
. Thats why Cooperton believes it as an actual book of history and not a book of parables and myths.

Most of Christianity disagrees with him. It's supposed to be read as history in places, parables in places, teaching myths in places, prophecy in places, poetry in places etc etc. I don't think he knows how it's supposed to be read.

All Christians should believe the Bible is the word of God..

The Bible didn't exist before 397AD when the Catholic Council of Carthage decided what books would be in the Bible and what wouldn't. Prior to that, people only had oral tradition and the Jewish scriptures. That quote you gave said that all scripture is from God, but it doesn't say that all scripture is literal historical truth. (although The people of that time probably thought it was all literal truth). A teaching myth can be from God (Noahs Ark) and be profitable for the person reading the story. Personally I think the Noahs Ark story is absolutely horrible and paints God in a terrible light and that people should be glad that it's just a teaching myth and not actual history. I don't know why some cling to it as actual history.

Gnosticism was removed because it promoted personal spiritual knowledge above the proto-orthodox teachings..

That would make a good thread discussion on it's own. You should start one.


I understand the problems with the Old Testament. The Abraham story was written a thousand years after he supposedly existed. Moses is credited with writing Genesis but it was written hundreds of years after he existed. Exodus couldn't have happened as then bible describes. Things like that. But the main message of the New Testament is to love God and neighbor. And I think that's a pretty good one. And the Jesus stories were written by followers of his apostles so there is a better credibility chance than with the Old Testament stories. I couple that with my own personal experiences with God and angels and demons. So I go with it and believe in God and the Jesus narrative.