The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Hot Dog

.....any differences between fossil and living creatures can be accounted for by speciation/variation since the Flood as well as extinctions during and since the Flood!

Not wanting to get into a debate on biology, ill give you this one.

The so-called 'vastly different ages' exist entirely in the 'fevered imaginations' of Evolutionists......please note that most species found as fossils have similar....and in some cases, EXACTLY the same representative creatures ALIVE today !!!

And this will lead down the road of radiogenic dating yadda yadda yadda

The Evolutionist contention in relation to fossil 'ages' is the same as me saying "Look at the 20 million year old Robin eating the 300 million year old Wood Louse".......when they both are contemporaneous and likely to be less than ONE YEAR OLD!!!:D:eek:

Of course, the ages are in relation to the length the species has existed, not the individual. However, woodlice are found in the geological record, and creatures like them (their ancestors), however, birds are not. Besides the point, and not geology

There was no shortage of Calcium Carbonate enriched waters that were released by the 'fountains of the abyss'......and this precipitated out to form the Limestones....and provided the cementing agent for the other Sedimentary Rocks.:D

Okay, evidence, and from where did this come? Carbonate producing creatures suddenly became active (but i though they were all killed in the flood, only a pair preserved upon the ark)?

Or perhaps the die off of vast quantities of shelled creatures compose the calp? Which is it, in your opinion (please show supporting evidence explaining the lack of hydrodynamically sorted shelly fauna)?

What is the fountains of the Abyss ( a Hovindism perhaps?) and why did it release CaCO3 of all things?

There also was no shortage of MUD in the FLOOD!!!!:eek:

Well, its hard to have both. clastic input stifles carbonate production, killing reefs, displacing organisms. So by "no shortage" you mean effectivly infinite, why is there limestone at all? Why is the Dublin basin not full of mudstone? Why is the leinster massif, the ice age deposits and the bray head formation not draped in these mudstones? What was the source of these muds?

Localised volcanic heating 'drove off' steam from trapped seawater to form the metalliferous brines that inevitably infiltrated the simultaneously settling carbonate flood deposits!!

I do not understand. Source of the metal? Do you get metal bearing brines when boil water in your kettle? Accepted theory (Menuge 2007) suggest that the brines were derived from the ancient (2000 million years old) Proterozoic basement of Ireland, where do you think it came from?

I have worked in Tara mines in Navan and the current consensus by the various Phd's who have worked there over the years do suggest a ceratib amount of syn genetic SEDEX emplacement, however, there are definite replacement textures in the Navan Orebody - explain this?

......the complexity observed in these synchronous groups is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex and multi-faceted nature of the Flood Catastrophe.

Not a meaningful answer, how do i have a massive world wide flood laying down braided river deposits in one part, yet making sand dunes in another? is the whole world under water or not? how are the river deposits of the munster basin synchronous with wind blown dunes (i.e on land)of the Permian sandstones of the British Rottliegends?

The coarseness of Granite is due to the nature of the original volcanic material which formed it....and any slow cooling was measured in months or years......and NOT millions of years!!!:D

you are joking - right? Granite is not volcanic. Slow cooling is right,but why were the laws of thermodynamics so different back then to allow for such rapid cooling? The laws of physics are pretty strict

This erosion was due to the movement of large volumes of water over a short time ......rather than relatively small amounts of water over a large amount of time......
......the post-Flood Ice Age also contributed greatly to the erosion of Caledonian rock formations!!!:)

Flood are not erosional - a still body of standing water wears down no mountains.

...the Cretaceous Chalk was laid down immediately before the Basalt Flows commenced in North Antrim!!!:eek:

And the basalt commenced when, and for what reason? How did the chalk sea conditions (shallow, warm, no clastic input) come to be? And what is its time relationship with the other rocks of this isle?

Congratulation on your recent graduation.......and may I wish you happiness and fulfillment as you set out on your new career in Geology!!

Thank you

......when I attended Geology lectures I was told exactly what you were told....and I believed it all.......
I found out later that there WAS an alternative explanation......and when I evaluated it....I found to my surprise, that it was a superior explanation and made more sense than the Evolutionist one!!!!!!!!!!:D

I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. there is no other useful explanation, I can recommend you some nice field trips to prove my point. I am not an evolutionist. that word does not exist

riftfiend

I am new to this forum thing and i have just been reading through the arguements presented above.
Forgive me if i am wrong but as far as i was aware the "Biblical" Flood was a world encompassing and all covering event in which it took 40 days for the waters to rise and a futher 100 days of the ark drifting and then howeverlong for the waters to receed - that is my understanding of the "story".
There are many reasons as to why this is just a story a metaphor and not to be taken litterally in any way shape or form. Now in the case of a worldwide flood the weather systems become very predictable on the earth due to the homogeneous nature of the surface for the sun to heat and cause variations of air pressure in the earths athmosphere due to differential heating. AIr when heated rises and on a totally oceanic planet with it is going to carry water vapour from the ocean to the upper parts of the troposphere and for clouds. winds are then set up as air comes from other parts of the atmosphere to replace that less dense air which is carrying moisture upwards. Eventaly as this process continues rain egns to form and the inevitable storms form.
Now here is the point. The ark from the story is a large wooden boat with two of every animal including all of the ones that are no extict presumably. this ark is adrift on an earth sized ocean with no means of propulsion or steering as noah very thoughtfuly did not install a rudder. Now the boa is at the mercy of the winds and the ocean currents. it is more than even slightly probably that given the location of many of the biblial stories(middle east) is very prone to storms even now specifically eletrical storms that the ark would have been subjected to these. No wthe fact that the earth was supposedly covered in water would now suggest that the ark is by far the highest point on the earth. Lightning like nearly every other natural force is lazy (see the millions of years of Hot Dog for geological examples) and air is a very good resistor so that it is relatively difficut for electricity to pass through it. However a soaking wet upstanding object such as an ark for example would be te perfect target for lightning to strike, and to strike repeatedly at that, as the electricity is taking the quickest, easiest and less resistive way to earth itsself by travleling through the ark and so probably killing all aboard and setting the wooden boat on fire. This to me is the main reason as to why the story of the flood is just that a story (not to mention the problems of fitting two of every animal on, a minor reason compared to the fact the ark would be destroyed). the only way to account for the geology of ireland is through observation and the interpretation of these observations with stringent scientific rigour and finally peer reviews.
Again Noahs flood is a story not fact.
I could continue to reply to this subject and probably will tomorrow but to more specific outrageous claims being made here, mainly about the age of the earth and how ireland is not a product ofthe "Great Flood"

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

.........yes....The Flood was UNPRECEDENTED......both since and before!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote:

I can certainly see how that would work. It does rather leave things open, of course - perhaps to volcanic events unlike any other, or asteroid impacts unlike any other, or indeed the dropping of a shoe quite like any other, to name but three of the infinite range of possibilities conjured into being by totally unique and utterly uncharacteristic events.

......very valid observations......you're becoming quite an accomplished Creation Scientist, Scofflaw!!!!:eek::D

.......yes....The Flood processes were UNPRECEDENTED......both since and before!!!:D

I think we've already established that I'm rather better at this Creation Scientist lark than you are! However, I am amazed anew at the way your complete confidence in your own misunderstanding of science allows or even encourages you to demonstrate exactly why "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. You're like a little font of revelation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......no need for any links to answer Hot Dog's relatively straighforward questions!!!!:D:)

......so can we get back (briefly) to Scofflaw and the 'Guidestones' and the Rosicrucians......and the Baby Tax Plan to 'elimainate birth as we know it'!!!!

......and WHAT is causing YOU ALL to be so AFRAID?????:):D

Well, we have to go with what's funny.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

......the explanation is that it WASN'T one inundation event......but a complex series of catastrophic events over a timespan of a few hundred years......with the most intense Geological phenomena lasting less than two years!!!:D

And so we see, folks, that JC does not let the Biblical account constrain his imagination either.

J C wrote:

......when I attended Geology lectures I was told exactly what you were told....and I believed it all.......
I found out later that there WAS an alternative explanation......and when I evaluated it....I found to my surprise, that it was a superior explanation and made more sense than the Evolutionist one!!!!!!!!!!

I'm still convinced you were the guy at the Creationist lecture in UCD who said that geology didn't make sense because animals couldn't crawl into solid rocks to become fossils. Still, that's just me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm still convinced you were the guy at the Creationist lecture in UCD who said that geology didn't make sense because animals couldn't crawl into solid rocks to become fossils. Still, that's just me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

......"you're quite entitled to your opinion".....as Galileo may have said to the Pope!!!!

.....aude, vide, tace!!!:D

J C wrote: »

......and WHAT is causing YOU ALL to be so AFRAID?????

Answer Scofflaw
Well, we have to go with what's funny.

.....so WHAT is causing YOU ALL to be so very AFRAID?????

.......and WHAT do you think of taxing newborn babies???

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think we've already established that I'm rather better at this Creation Scientist lark than you are!

......you may very well be!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

........You're like a little font of revelation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

....yes indeed The Holy Spirit does reveal things to me that are hidden from the 'wise'.......and the supposedly 'illuminated ones'......some of whom are on this thread!!!!:D

Praying for you
J C

pH

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.......and WHAT do you think of taxing newborn babies???

What has that got to do with this discussion?

sdep

Re: pH's post above

That's why I'm interested in the debate about the scientific debate, but I prefer not to get involved in rehashing the science itself. There, I don't think the front lines have moved much in this thread in over two years - and they thought it would be over by Christmas.

Galvasean

I too would like to know what the taxing of new born babies has to do with the rest of this thread.

Zombrex

I would like to see JC reply to Hot Dogs response

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

.......and WHAT do you think of taxing newborn babies???

I reckon they wouldn't pay.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Hmm, nope still can't see him. Ah well, off to hell for me then...

Sorry not to have responded yet - I'm still sitting in hospital with my Mum. Back soon, DV.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry not to have responded yet - I'm still sitting in hospital with my Mum. Back soon, DV.

Is your mum sick? My best wishes for her, get well soon!

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

I would like to see JC reply to Hot Dogs response

Me too, here JC:

Quote:
.....any differences between fossil and living creatures can be accounted for by speciation/variation since the Flood as well as extinctions during and since the Flood!

Not wanting to get into a debate on biology, ill give you this one.

Quote:
The so-called 'vastly different ages' exist entirely in the 'fevered imaginations' of Evolutionists......please note that most species found as fossils have similar....and in some cases, EXACTLY the same representative creatures ALIVE today !!!

And this will lead down the road of radiogenic dating yadda yadda yadda

Quote:
The Evolutionist contention in relation to fossil 'ages' is the same as me saying "Look at the 20 million year old Robin eating the 300 million year old Wood Louse".......when they both are contemporaneous and likely to be less than ONE YEAR OLD!!!

Of course, the ages are in relation to the length the species has existed, not the individual. However, woodlice are found in the geological record, and creatures like them (their ancestors), however, birds are not. Besides the point, and not geology

Quote:
There was no shortage of Calcium Carbonate enriched waters that were released by the 'fountains of the abyss'......and this precipitated out to form the Limestones....and provided the cementing agent for the other Sedimentary Rocks.

Okay, evidence, and from where did this come? Carbonate producing creatures suddenly became active (but i though they were all killed in the flood, only a pair preserved upon the ark)?

Or perhaps the die off of vast quantities of shelled creatures compose the calp? Which is it, in your opinion (please show supporting evidence explaining the lack of hydrodynamically sorted shelly fauna)?

What is the fountains of the Abyss ( a Hovindism perhaps?) and why did it release CaCO3 of all things?

Quote:
There also was no shortage of MUD in the FLOOD!!!!

Well, its hard to have both. clastic input stifles carbonate production, killing reefs, displacing organisms. So by "no shortage" you mean effectivly infinite, why is there limestone at all? Why is the Dublin basin not full of mudstone? Why is the leinster massif, the ice age deposits and the bray head formation not draped in these mudstones? What was the source of these muds?

Quote:
Localised volcanic heating 'drove off' steam from trapped seawater to form the metalliferous brines that inevitably infiltrated the simultaneously settling carbonate flood deposits!!

I do not understand. Source of the metal? Do you get metal bearing brines when boil water in your kettle? Accepted theory (Menuge 2007) suggest that the brines were derived from the ancient (2000 million years old) Proterozoic basement of Ireland, where do you think it came from?

I have worked in Tara mines in Navan and the current consensus by the various Phd's who have worked there over the years do suggest a ceratib amount of syn genetic SEDEX emplacement, however, there are definite replacement textures in the Navan Orebody - explain this?

Quote:
......the complexity observed in these synchronous groups is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex and multi-faceted nature of the Flood Catastrophe.

Not a meaningful answer, how do i have a massive world wide flood laying down braided river deposits in one part, yet making sand dunes in another? is the whole world under water or not? how are the river deposits of the munster basin synchronous with wind blown dunes (i.e on land)of the Permian sandstones of the British Rottliegends?

Quote:
The coarseness of Granite is due to the nature of the original volcanic material which formed it....and any slow cooling was measured in months or years......and NOT millions of years!!!

you are joking - right? Granite is not volcanic. Slow cooling is right,but why were the laws of thermodynamics so different back then to allow for such rapid cooling? The laws of physics are pretty strict

Quote:
This erosion was due to the movement of large volumes of water over a short time ......rather than relatively small amounts of water over a large amount of time......
......the post-Flood Ice Age also contributed greatly to the erosion of Caledonian rock formations!!!

Flood are not erosional - a still body of standing water wears down no mountains.

Quote:
...the Cretaceous Chalk was laid down immediately before the Basalt Flows commenced in North Antrim!!!

And the basalt commenced when, and for what reason? How did the chalk sea conditions (shallow, warm, no clastic input) come to be? And what is its time relationship with the other rocks of this isle?

Quote:
......when I attended Geology lectures I was told exactly what you were told....and I believed it all.......
I found out later that there WAS an alternative explanation......and when I evaluated it....I found to my surprise, that it was a superior explanation and made more sense than the Evolutionist one!!!!!!!!!!

I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. there is no other useful explanation, I can recommend you some nice field trips to prove my point. I am not an evolutionist. that word does not exist

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

What has that got to do with this discussion?

..............the Evolutionists argued that population reduction was a good idea......I asked how it might be achieved.......all the Evolutionists 'got scared'.......
......I then came across this idea for 'population reduction'......and now the Evolutionists seem to be still scared!!!!!

......so I would like to know what is it about the plans for 'population reduction'......that is scaring the Evolutionists on this thread.....

.......and do they support charging $5,000 to the parents of newborn babies......and presumably $15,000.....if they 'hit the jackpot'......and have triplets!!!!????

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

..............the Evolutionists argued that population reduction was a good idea......I asked how it might be achieved.......all the Evolutionists 'got scared'.......
......I then came across this idea for 'population reduction'......and now the Evolutionists seem to be still scared!!!!!

......so I would like to know what is it about the plans for 'population reduction'......that is scaring the Evolutionists on this thread.....

.......and do they support charging $5,000 to the parents of newborn babies......and presumably $15,000.....if they 'hit the jackpot'......and have triplets!!!!????

Who is an evolutionist? Where did they say they support population reduction? Who cares if someone wrote a paper about taxing babies? Gregory N.Mankiw wrote a paper about taxing height, that doesn't mean its going to happen, it was just a thought exercise.

Eschatologist

JC, you do realise that in calling people 'Evolutionists', you are implicating yourself as one? I noticed in one of your comments in response to the diversity of fossils that your reason why fossils in different stratigraphic layers are different from extant species today was caused by change and diversification after the so-called flood event (events, in your opinion).

What's the word them there scientists call species diversification following catrostrohic events allowing new ecological niches to become available? Oh yeah - evolution!

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote:

Sorry not to have responded yet - I'm still sitting in hospital with my Mum. Back soon, DV.

Is your mum sick? My best wishes for her, get well soon!

Indeed - best wishes!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Quotes in Black from Hot Dog......my replies in Blue

Not wanting to get into a debate on biology, ill give you this one.
OK


And this will lead down the road of radiogenic dating yadda yadda yadda
.....which involves circular reasoning supporting circular reasoning.....in a great big CIRCLE!!!


Of course, the ages are in relation to the length the species has existed, not the individual. However, woodlice are found in the geological record, and creatures like them (their ancestors), however, birds are not. Besides the point, and not geology
......there are representative fossils of ALL creature types....including birds.....but birds are very rare......because they were amongst the last creatures to succum to the waves......and they therefore mostly rotted on the surface of the waters!!!!


Okay, evidence, and from where did this come? Carbonate producing creatures suddenly became active (but i though they were all killed in the flood, only a pair preserved upon the ark)?
Or perhaps the die off of vast quantities of shelled creatures compose the calp? Which is it, in your opinion (please show supporting evidence explaining the lack of hydrodynamically sorted shelly fauna)?


.....the Calcium Carbonate was mostly super-heated pure chemical Calcium Carbonate suspended in the subterreanean waters that burst fort during the Flood.....through the largely collapsed caverns that we now know as Limestone Cave systems........please note that Limestone is usually not very fossiliferous.......and most of it is made up of non-organic Calcium Carbonate!!!

Limited numbers of shells are also found in Limestone.....and these creatures were caught up and entombed in the precipitating Calcium Carbonate


What is the fountains of the Abyss ( a Hovindism perhaps?) and why did it release CaCO3 of all things?
....there was vastly more sub-terranean water than today in underground caverns prior to the Flood. Remnants of this sub-terranean water are still to be found, for example, in the great Artesian Basins of Arabia, Australia, The Sahara, etc
......it is thought that MOST of the floodwater 'welled up' from under the Earth.......with less than 5% coming from rainfall!!!
.....the underground waters had variable compositions ranging from pure water to Calcium Carbonate sludges and concentrated saltwater and metaliferous brines.....

Well, its hard to have both. clastic input stifles carbonate production, killing reefs, displacing organisms. So by "no shortage" you mean effectivly infinite, why is there limestone at all? Why is the Dublin basin not full of mudstone? Why is the leinster massif, the ice age deposits and the bray head formation not draped in these mudstones? What was the source of these muds?
..........many reefs were killed by the Flood processes ......there is a fossilised coral reef preserved in the West Cavan Limesones!!!
.....there are also mudstones...and shale ....which is derived from metamorphosed mud!!!

......and Ice Age deposits were deposited hundreds of years AFTER the primary Flood Event!!!


I do not understand. Source of the metal? Do you get metal bearing brines when boil water in your kettle? Accepted theory (Menuge 2007) suggest that the brines were derived from the ancient (2000 million years old) Proterozoic basement of Ireland, where do you think it came from?
......you get metaliferous brines .....when you boil off seawater containing metaliferous salts.....or vis the infusion of such salts from volcanic activity!!
....the basement is the original Earths crust +/- mantle outpourings during the Flood Catastrophe


I have worked in Tara mines in Navan and the current consensus by the various Phd's who have worked there over the years do suggest a ceratib amount of syn genetic SEDEX emplacement, however, there are definite replacement textures in the Navan Orebody - explain this?
....to answer you could I quote from a paper that I was recently reading which explains SEDEX deposits very elegantly:
"The morphology of SEDEX deposits is highly variable and includes mounds, lenses, and tabular or sheet-like bodies. Their internal architecture is controlled by the proximity of seafloor sulphides to fluid discharge vents. Vent-proximal deposits typically form from buoyant hydrothermal fluids whereas vent-distal deposits form from fluids that are denser than seawater and pool in depressions on the seafloor that may be remote from the vent site.
The typical basinal architecture of most SEDEX deposits is a continental rift basin with at least 2 to 5 km of syn-rift coarse-grained permeable clastics and related volcanics or volcaniclastics overlain by post-rift impermeable basinal shales or carbonates. Hydrothermal discharge to the seafloor was usually focused at the intersection of extensional and transform faults. There is close temporal and, in many cases, spatial association of SEDEX deposits with basaltic volcanic rocks, dykes, and sills. The low rigidity, permeability, and thermal conductivity of host sediments served to focus and prolong hydrothermal discharge at a restricted number of vent sites "

.......so such mineral deposits were laid down by sub-marine volcanic venting during the Flood Catastrophy........and instead of concentrated Calcium Carbonate solutions......these vents produced highly mineraliferous discharges!!!!


Not a meaningful answer, how do i have a massive world wide flood laying down braided river deposits in one part, yet making sand dunes in another? is the whole world under water or not? how are the river deposits of the munster basin synchronous with wind blown dunes (i.e on land)of the Permian sandstones of the British Rottliegends?
.....at the start there was dry land and sea-covered land ........then all of the land was flooded largely by tectonic collapse....and then huge 'after shock' tectonic movements raised some of the land to form mountains, sub-ocean ridges and dry land planes.......while corresponding collapses created rift valleys and sub-oceanic trenches!!!
...all of these activities interacting with locally specific conditions produced a wide variety of Geological formations ........over a few hundred years....if you also take the effects of the Ice Age into account!!!


you are joking - right? Granite is not volcanic. Slow cooling is right,but why were the laws of thermodynamics so different back then to allow for such rapid cooling? The laws of physics are pretty strict
Granite is largely produced by magmatic processes........which are themselves constricted sub-terranean volcanic activity!!!
.......there are new volcanic islands of several cubic kilometeres in volume that have emerged from the ocean in the 1960s......and they have cooled sufficiently to be colonised by both animal and plant life in LESS THAN FIFTY Years!!!!

The island of Surtsey, for example only started emerging, via volcanic activity, from the Atlantic Ocean off Iceland in 1963......and there is NOW a thriving ecosystem already established on it ....have a look here
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/surtsey.html


Flood are not erosional - a still body of standing water wears down no mountains.
.....at the start there was dry land and sea-covered land ........then all of the land was flooded largely by tectonic collapse....and then huge 'after shock' tectonic movements raised some of the land to form mountains, sub-ocean ridges and dry land planes.......while corresponding collapses created rift valleys and sub-oceanic trenches!!!
...all of these activities interacting with locally specific conditions produced enormosusly powerful water MOVEMENTS........which were capable of eroding and moving vast quantities of materials over enormous distances!!!

There were, of course, ALSO locally quiescent periods of 'standing water'.....when the layered Sedimentary Rocks, which we observe were laid down by settlement and cementation!!!

And the basalt commenced when, and for what reason? How did the chalk sea conditions (shallow, warm, no clastic input) come to be? And what is its time relationship with the other rocks of this isle?
Chalk is a form of Limestone......and has a similar genesis to Limestone.....see my explantion for Limestone deposits above!!


I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. there is no other useful explanation, I can recommend you some nice field trips to prove my point.
I too have seen the evidence with my own eyes.........
.....and there is no better explanations than the ones above!!:D


I am not an evolutionist. that word does not exist
.......glad that you don't consider yourself to be an Evolutionist......
....and YES.....put that 'naughty naughty' E-word completely out of your mind!!!

......but don't tell Evolutionists how you feel.......they can get very 'worked up' about anybody who ceases to be an Evolutionistl!!!!

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

Not wanting to get into a debate on biology, ill give you this one.
OK


And this will lead down the road of radiogenic dating yadda yadda yadda
.....which involves circular reasoning supporting circular reasoning.....in a great big CIRCLE!!!


Of course, the ages are in relation to the length the species has existed, not the individual. However, woodlice are found in the geological record, and creatures like them (their ancestors), however, birds are not. Besides the point, and not geology
......there are representative fossils of ALL creature types....including birds.....but birds are very rare......because they were amongst the last creatures to succum to the waves......and they therefore mostly rotted on the surface of the waters!!!!


Okay, evidence, and from where did this come? Carbonate producing creatures suddenly became active (but i though they were all killed in the flood, only a pair preserved upon the ark)?
Or perhaps the die off of vast quantities of shelled creatures compose the calp? Which is it, in your opinion (please show supporting evidence explaining the lack of hydrodynamically sorted shelly fauna)?


.....the Calcium Carbonate was mostly super-heated pure chemical Calcium Carbonate suspended in the subterreanean waters that burst fort during the Flood.....through the largely collapsed caverns that we now know as Limestone Cave systems........please note that Limestone is usually not very fossiliferous.......and most of it is made up of non-organic Calcium Carbonate!!!

Limited numbers of shells are also found in Limestone.....and these creatures were entombed in the precipitating Calcium Carbonate


What is the fountains of the Abyss ( a Hovindism perhaps?) and why did it release CaCO3 of all things?
....there was vastly more sub-terranean water prior to the Flood in underground caverns prior to the Flood. Remnants of this sub-terranean water is still to be found in the great Artesian Basins of Arabia, Australia, The Sahara, etc
......it is thought that MOST of the floodwater 'welled up' from under the Earth.......with less than 5% coming from rainfall!!!
.....the underground waters had variable compositions ranging from pure water to Calcium Carbonate sludges and concentrated saltwater brines.....

Well, its hard to have both. clastic input stifles carbonate production, killing reefs, displacing organisms. So by "no shortage" you mean effectivly infinite, why is there limestone at all? Why is the Dublin basin not full of mudstone? Why is the leinster massif, the ice age deposits and the bray head formation not draped in these mudstones? What was the source of these muds?
..........many reefs were killed ......there is a fossilised coral reef preserved in the West Cavan Limesones!!!
.....there are mudstones...and shale ....which is derived from metamorphosed mud!!!

......and Ice Age deposits were deposited hundreds of years AFTER the primary Flood Event!!!


I do not understand. Source of the metal? Do you get metal bearing brines when boil water in your kettle? Accepted theory (Menuge 2007) suggest that the brines were derived from the ancient (2000 million years old) Proterozoic basement of Ireland, where do you think it came from?
......you get metaliferous brines .....when you boil off seawater containing metaliferous salts.....or vi the infusion of such salts from volcanic activity!!
....the basement is the original Earths crust +/- mantle outpourings during the Flood Catastrophe


I have worked in Tara mines in Navan and the current consensus by the various Phd's who have worked there over the years do suggest a ceratib amount of syn genetic SEDEX emplacement, however, there are definite replacement textures in the Navan Orebody - explain this?
The morphology of SEDEX deposits is highly variable and includes mounds, lenses, and tabular or sheet-like bodies. Their internal architecture is controlled by the proximity of seafloor sulphides to fluid discharge vents. Vent-proximal deposits typically form from buoyant hydrothermal fluids whereas vent-distal deposits form from fluids that are denser than seawater and pool in depressions on the seafloor that may be remote from the vent site.
....to answer you could I quote from a paper that I was recently reading which explains SEDEX deposits very elegantly:
"The typical basinal architecture of most SEDEX deposits is a continental rift basin with at least 2 to 5 km of syn-rift coarse-grained permeable clastics and related volcanics or volcaniclastics overlain by post-rift impermeable basinal shales or carbonates. Hydrothermal discharge to the seafloor was usually focused at the intersection of extensional and transform faults. There is close temporal and, in many cases, spatial association of SEDEX deposits with basaltic volcanic rocks, dykes, and sills. The low rigidity, permeability, and thermal conductivity of host sediments served to focus and prolong hydrothermal discharge at a restricted number of vent sites "

.......so such mineral deposits were laid down by sub-marine volcanic venting during the Flood Catastrophy........and instead of concentrated Calcium Carbonate solutions......these vents produced higly mineraliferous discharges!!!!


Not a meaningful answer, how do i have a massive world wide flood laying down braided river deposits in one part, yet making sand dunes in another? is the whole world under water or not? how are the river deposits of the munster basin synchronous with wind blown dunes (i.e on land)of the Permian sandstones of the British Rottliegends?
.....at the start there was dry land and sea-covered land ........then all of the land was flooded largely by tectonic collapse....and then huge 'after shock' tectonic movements raised some of the land to form mountains, sub-ocean ridges and dry land planes.......while corresponding collapses created rift valleys and sub-oceanic trenches!!!
...all of these activities interacting with locally specific conditions produced a wide variety of Geological formations ........over a few hundred years....if you also thake the effects of the Ice Age into account!!!


you are joking - right? Granite is not volcanic. Slow cooling is right,but why were the laws of thermodynamics so different back then to allow for such rapid cooling? The laws of physics are pretty strict
Granite is largely produced by magmatic processes........which are themselves constricted sub-terranean volcanic activity!!!
.......there are new volcanic islands of several cubic kilometeres in volume that have emerged from the ocean less than 50 years ago ......and they have cooled sufficiently to be colonised by both animal and plant life in LESS THAN FIFTY Years!!!!

The island of Surtsey, for example only started emerging via volcanic activity from the Atlantic off Iceland in 1963......and there is NOW a thriving ecosystem already established on it ....have a look here
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/surtsey.html


Flood are not erosional - a still body of standing water wears down no mountains.
.....at the start there was dry land and sea-covered land ........then all of the land was flooded largely by tectonic collapse....and then huge 'after shock' tectonic movements raised some of the land to form mountains, sub-ocean ridges and dry land planes.......while corresponding collapses created rift valleys and sub-oceanic trenches!!!
...all of these activities interacting with locally specific conditions produced a enormosusly powerful water MOVEMENTS........which were capable of eroding and moving vast quantities of materials over enormous distances!!!

And the basalt commenced when, and for what reason? How did the chalk sea conditions (shallow, warm, no clastic input) come to be? And what is its time relationship with the other rocks of this isle?
Chalk is a form of Limestone......and has a similar genesis to Limestone.....see my explantion for Limestone deposits above!!


I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. there is no other useful explanation, I can recommend you some nice field trips to prove my point. I am not an evolutionist.
I too have seen the evidence with my own eyes.........
.......glad that you don't consider yourself to be an Evolutionist......
......but don't tell Evolutionists how you feel.......they can get very 'worked up' about anybody who doesn't consider themselves to be descended from a Slimeball!!!!

My head hurts from reading this, can someone give me a hand trawling thru the blatantly anti scientific method shown here? Scofflaw, riftfiend, anyone?

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

My head hurts from reading this, can someone give me a hand trawling thru the blatantly anti scientific method shown here? Scofflaw, riftfiend, anyone?

"My head hurts......and I ache all over"........
......you sound like an ad for UNI-FLU!!!!:D


THE PIPS ARE SQUEAKING!!!:D:eek::)

.....and I freely give all the credit to my scientific training in the National University of Ireland.......and the Holy Spirit of God!!!!

.....it's amazing what ONE Christian can do AGAINST hundreds of Evolutionists........truly Jesus was correct when He said that a Christian with only the faith of a Mustard Seed could move a mountain!!!:D


.....BTW did you ALL hear the brilliant new radio ad for the Volkswagen Passat TSi car........which compares the complexity of its development to Noah's Ark ......and concludes that the ingenuity of Noah's Ark was greater than that for any car......including the Passat!!!!:D

Eschatologist wrote: »

JC, you do realise that in calling people 'Evolutionists', you are implicating yourself as one? I noticed in one of your comments in response to the diversity of fossils that your reason why fossils in different stratigraphic layers are different from extant species today was caused by change and diversification after the so-called flood event (events, in your opinion).

What's the word them there scientists call species diversification following catrostrohic events allowing new ecological niches to become available? Oh yeah - evolution!

I once was an Evolutionist.........so the E-word is not completely alien to me as a descriptor of myself !!!

.....and Creation Scientists prefer to call the rapid species diversification following Noah's Flood.......SPECIATION!!!!:D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry not to have responded yet - I'm still sitting in hospital with my Mum. Back soon, DV.

Wolfsbane's mother has gone to be with the Lord about an hour ago.

With Jesus Christ......which is far better.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Wolfsbane's mother has gone to be with the Lord about an hour ago.

With Jesus Christ......which is far better.

I'm sorry to hear that.

condolences,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Hot Dog wrote: »

My head hurts from reading this, can someone give me a hand trawling thru the blatantly anti scientific method shown here? Scofflaw, riftfiend, anyone?

JC works by constantly giving non-detailed nonsense answers to direct questions and then quickly moving on to the next thing to talk about. He never gets into detail about any of his answers (cause he can't back them up) and you waste a lot of time trying to when you tackle his posts with big long lists of examples to explain. He just gives brief made up explanations and then moves on.

You are far better taking one specific point and hammering him on that, because it doesn't take very long for his arguments on that specific point to crumble and for his arguments to be exposed for the nonsense they are.

For example -

JC wrote:

......you get metaliferous brines .....when you boil off seawater containing metaliferous salts.....or vi the infusion of such salts from volcanic activity!!
....the basement is the original Earths crust +/- mantle outpourings during the Flood Catastrophe

There is not a single part of that sentence that actually works with the rest of his model. How did the water "boil off" under the Flood waters that were supposed to be forming the rock layers in the first place. It simply doesn't add up. Its nonsense.

But JC doesn't care. He is not actually answering your question, he is simply providing any old answer he can think of, even if the answer makes nonsense in any context. This is what Creationists do.

He is simply hoping that if he does this enough to all your points you will simply run out of patience answering him.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm still sitting in hospital with my Mum.

I'm sorry to read that your mum has died and I pass my sincere condolences to you, your family and friends. But I am happy to hear that you were with her in her final hours -- I can't think of any more decent, indeed warmly human, way for your or anybody's mother to be honored.

.

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

I'm sorry to read that your mum has died and I pass my sincere condolences to you, your family and friends. But I am happy to hear that you were with her in her final hours -- I can't think of any more decent, indeed warmly human, way for your or anybody's mother to be honored.

.

Indeed, i extend my condolences.

Hot Dog

Wicknight wrote: »

JC works by constantly giving non-detailed nonsense answers to direct questions and then quickly moving on to the next thing to talk about. He never gets into detail about any of his answers (cause he can't back them up) and you waste a lot of time trying to when you tackle his posts with big long lists of examples to explain. He just gives brief made up explanations and then moves on.

You are far better taking one specific point and hammering him on that, because it doesn't take very long for his arguments on that specific point to crumble and for his arguments to be exposed for the nonsense they are.

For example -



There is not a single part of that sentence that actually works with the rest of his model. How did the water "boil off" under the Flood waters that were supposed to be forming the rock layers in the first place. It simply doesn't add up. Its nonsense.

But JC doesn't care. He is not actually answering your question, he is simply providing any old answer he can think of, even if the answer makes nonsense in any context. This is what Creationists do.

He is simply hoping that if he does this enough to all your points you will simply run out of patience answering him.

To ne honest, I am no stranger to debating creationists, its obvious that JC is making this up as he goes along. The real reason i posted at all was to see if I could still recall and understand various bits of geology having left college 9 months ago. I feel that if i can argue it, I still understand it. It was a bit of practice.

Eschatologist

Most limestones are not very fossiliferous? What the hell JC! Limestones consist FOR THE MOST PART of the shells of marine organisms. They only appear non-fossilferous because these shells are microscopic. And I've seen them under a microscope so I think we can be clear on this point.

To quote you here,
"the Calcium Carbonate was mostly super-heated pure chemical Calcium Carbonate suspended in the subterreanean waters that burst fort during the Flood"

True, secondary calcite does precipitate out of meteoric waters in cave systems. But it's called a secondary product for a reason - the vast majority of limestone was and is deposited in marine settings by marine organisms. Inorganic limestone is almost always oolitic and I can tell you now that oolites are not formed by the 'bursting forth' of pure chemical calcium carbonate. That's a fact, believe it or not. A real scientific fact.

But please, what is a 'fountain of the abyss'? Care to elucidate that phrase in more rigorous scientific terms? But then that is the creationist way of wriggling out of things - ambiguity.

I want a precise, geological and chemical description of what exactly this fountain is, for I have never seen it described in the scientific literature.

Much appreciated.