Nothing made everything....

[JackA]

A god makes very little sense. What created this god? Did it emerge from nothing?

God makes no sense at all. It is a substiute for sense.

 

[Logician Man]

God makes no sense at all. It is a substiute for sense.

Occum's Razor ----> Men created God (s )....not vice versa..

 

[Quag]

I think I know how the universe emerged from nothing. I am trying to help you come up with an idea of your own that even makes sense if it deliberately leaves out God.

If you think you know please answer the question
What are you basing your claims God did it on?

 

[marke]

The evidence is against that.

How do you think the layers of sediment the grand canyon formed?

By deposits of sediments during flooding.

 

[marke]

Do you think we landed on the moon, marke ?

I can see how that could have been a hoax but I hardly think it was. I think the US has been wise to stop spending so many precious tax dollars on flying men into space.

 

[Logician Man]

I can see how that could have been a hoax but I hardly think it was. I think the US has been wise to stop spending so many precious tax dollars on flying men into space.

thx but I think space exploration is a solid investment for mankind on many levels.

 

[marke]

thx but I think space exploration is a solid investment for mankind on many levels.

I would not oppose money being spent on space exploration if I had confidence anyone in government had a realistic plan for getting the $22 trillion US debt paid off.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Wrong. High pressures will not keep the formation from cracking when bent after it hardens. Furthermore, slow sedimentation assumptions do nothing to explain where the high pressures came from which compressed the soft deposits into hardened sediments and, ultimately, into rock. Deep ocean water cover would supply the kind of pressure needed to do that sort of thing.

The pressure was from the weight of rock above it.

The folded rock has cracks in it. Go and have a look at some.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Slow rivers do not cut through rock. There are no grand canyon cuts along the mighty Mississippi from Minnesota to Louisiana. The Grand Canyon was likely primarily formed by a huge dam break after the flood, just like the Channeled Scablands were.

The Colorado is slow before the canyon and slow after it. In it is it faster. This is because the gradient during the canyon is higher. It was definately not formed by a sudden one off event. That is why it looks so different to the Scablands.

 

[Xelor]

Nothing made everything....

I recommend you read this: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[zyzygy]

I will admit that Niagara Falls have cut a gorge through rock and is backing up at a steady rate which can be calculated to give the falls an age of around 6,000 years.

Wrong again.

Niagara Falls water stems from the upper Great Lakes and the river is estimated to be 12,000 years old.

https://www.history.com/topics/landmarks/niagara-falls

 

[marke]

The pressure was from the weight of rock above it.

The folded rock has cracks in it. Go and have a look at some.

The Kaibab was not pressed into rock by the weight of rock above it. The Kaibab was the topmost layer. I understand why secularists must believe the rocks were folded in some strange way which defies laws of geology but I see no need to twist myself into a pretzel to come up with an explanation, no matter how bad, which protects long held bad assumptions about the geology of the Grand Canyon.

Here is a paper which offers a more reasonable alternative to rock hard secular assumptions:

Grand Canyon - What Is the Message? https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/grand-canyon-what-is-the-message/

 

[marke]

The Colorado is slow before the canyon and slow after it. In it is it faster. This is because the gradient during the canyon is higher. It was definately not formed by a sudden one off event. That is why it looks so different to the Scablands.

No, that is not right. The Grand Canyon was cut from top to bottom, not from bottom to top. The Colorado River runs at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It never ran at the top.

 

[marke]

Wrong again.

Niagara Falls water stems from the upper Great Lakes and the river is estimated to be 12,000 years old.

https://www.history.com/topics/landmarks/niagara-falls

Go ahead, guess, speculate and estimate all you want. I'm comfortable analyzing the facts as I see them not as some biased analyst thinks he sees them.

 

[RAMOSS]

By deposits of sediments during flooding.

So, if it's done during flooding, how can a desert environment be bracketed by two different sea environments?

 

[marke]

So, if it's done during flooding, how can a desert environment be bracketed by two different sea environments?

You have presented an interesting fact in evidence. How did a desert environment get suddenly flooded with deep flood waters? I have an excellent idea, but let's ask a related question. How did a desert environment get pressed into rock formations that lie between layers of other rock formations which were obviously formed under water? I still say the sudden catastrophic flood of Noah's day provides an excellent scenario in which all the facts are explained.

 

[RAMOSS]

You have presented an interesting fact in evidence. How did a desert environment get suddenly flooded with deep flood waters? I have an excellent idea, but let's ask a related question. How did a desert environment get pressed into rock formations that lie between layers of other rock formations which were obviously formed under water? I still say the sudden catastrophic flood of Noah's day provides an excellent scenario in which all the facts are explained.

Let's even look further at this desert environment. It has footprints in sandstone. How could flooding not wash away a foot print if the layer was put there via a flood?

Also, how could a flood cut through a layer is was making at the same time??

Conclusion, .. it wasn't a flood.

Remember, a layer above it was a shallow sea. The layer below it was a shallow sea, with a different set of mollusks. If it was a flood, how could the layer of mollusks stay so seperate? Why would there not be intermixing??

The answer is .. because it wasn't a flood.

 

[marke]

Let's even look further at this desert environment. It has footprints in sandstone. How could flooding not wash away a foot print if the layer was put there via a flood?

Also, how could a flood cut through a layer is was making at the same time??

Conclusion, .. it wasn't a flood.

Remember, a layer above it was a shallow sea. The layer below it was a shallow sea, with a different set of mollusks. If it was a flood, how could the layer of mollusks stay so seperate? Why would there not be intermixing??

The answer is .. because it wasn't a flood.

You ask about waters washing away footprints in the sand. Were the footprints in the sand never covered by water after they were made? Who is fabricating this whole speculative scenario in an obvious effort to explain the evidence while adamantly insisting flooding was not involved?

 

[zyzygy]

You ask about waters washing away footprints in the sand. Were the footprints in the sand never covered by water after they were made? Who is fabricating this whole speculative scenario in an obvious effort to explain the evidence while adamantly insisting flooding was not involved?

The Biblical flood myth is a fabrication.

 

[PoS]

The Biblical flood myth is a fabrication.

Or maybe they just didnt know any better. I mean in ancient times if your village is the only place youve known your entire life and then all of a sudden it gets washed away then surely you'd think its the end of the world...

 

[RAMOSS]

You ask about waters washing away footprints in the sand. Were the footprints in the sand never covered by water after they were made? Who is fabricating this whole speculative scenario in an obvious effort to explain the evidence while adamantly insisting flooding was not involved?

Why, I am asking a question how it could. Since you are diverting, you can't answer that.

We know how sandstone gets formed. It's when it gets covered , and pressure from upper layers compacts it. No water is needed. That is due to this thing known as 'observation'. I brought up problems with your 'flood model', and it seems you divert rather than answer.

 

[zyzygy]

Or maybe they just didnt know any better. I mean in ancient times if your village is the only place youve known your entire life and then all of a sudden it gets washed away then surely you'd think its the end of the world...

True, but why make up garbage about Noah, the Ark and the animals?

 

[Tim the plumber]

The Kaibab was not pressed into rock by the weight of rock above it. The Kaibab was the topmost layer. I understand why secularists must believe the rocks were folded in some strange way which defies laws of geology but I see no need to twist myself into a pretzel to come up with an explanation, no matter how bad, which protects long held bad assumptions about the geology of the Grand Canyon.

Here is a paper which offers a more reasonable alternative to rock hard secular assumptions:

Grand Canyon - What Is the Message? https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/grand-canyon-what-is-the-message/

No idea what the Kaibab is, link to that thing please, but just because it is at the top today does not mean it was always at the top. Layers above it may well have been erroded away.

 

[Tim the plumber]

No, that is not right. The Grand Canyon was cut from top to bottom, not from bottom to top. The Colorado River runs at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It never ran at the top.

The point is that the river has cut down from the top to where it is now. This has happened because the land has risen where the canyon is. It continues to rise today. Slowly it is creating a new small mountain range. Although it may well not get that far.

 

[zyzygy]

No idea what the Kaibab is, link to that thing please, but just because it is at the top today does not mean it was always at the top. Layers above it may well have been erroded away.

Named as the upper formation of the Aubrey group for the Kaibab Plateau, north side of the Grand Canyon, Coconino Co, AZ in the Plateau sedimentary province. No type locality designated. Geologic map. Mapped as far west as the Grand Wash Cliffs, Mohave Co, AZ in the Plateau sedimentary province, and as far south as the Verde River in Yavapai Co, AZ in the Basin-and-Range province. Previously called Aubrey limestone. Ranges from 100 to 820 ft thick. Description of a measured section at Cataract Creek from an earlier report shows it as consisting of soft, yellow limestone at base that becomes hard, blue chert limestone in middle and upper parts and is interbedded with green, red, and white shale and snowy gypsum 180 ft thick, 100 ft above base, and coarse drab sandstone containing quartz pebbles and vegetable impressions 20 ft thick that lies 50 ft below the top. Contains abundant Pennsylvanian fauna--corals, brachiopods, mollusks, etc. Overlies Coconino sandstone (new) of Aubrey group. Underlies Moencopie formation of Shinarump group. Stratigraphic chart.

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/KaibabRefs_9032.html