[continued from previous message]   
      
   >Which then means that you should know everything I mention about what is in   
   >the bible, eh?   
      
   We were discussing science at this point, not the Bible in and of   
   itself.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Rapid burial does not imply universal rapid burial,   
   and there   
   >> > > > > > > > > > > are many types of slow deposition (e.g., mummification,   
   or   
   >> > > > > > > > > > > paleosols,   
   >> > > > > > > > > > > disarticulation of vertebrate skeletons) that would be   
   beyond the   
   >> > > > > > > > > > > reach of what a one-year flood would be capable of.   
   >> > > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > > Rapid burial does deposit things quickly when runoff   
   happens and   
   >> > > > > > > > > > hole   
   >> > > > > > > > > > or   
   >> > > > > > > > > > hollows are created especially when trees, branches,   
   bldgs create a   
   >> > > > > > > > > > dam   
   >> > > > > > > > > > and   
   >> > > > > > > > > > limestone as described under the pressure of deep water   
   are deprived   
   >> > > > > > > > > > of   
   >> > > > > > > > > > O2   
   >> > > > > > > > > > and so it hardens Thus trapping whatever is there.   
   Encased. And the   
   >> > > > > > > > > > soft   
   >> > > > > > > > > > limestone understanding deep water will harden the   
   surface mold of   
   >> > > > > > > > > > footprints, etc.   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > That has nothing to do with whether a world-wide Flood   
   would be   
   >> > > > > > > > > necessary to form limestone. And calcium carbonate   
   mudslides are not   
   >> > > > > > > > > the primary source of limestone formation, which takes   
   awhile to form   
   >> > > > > > > > > due to the small grain sizes involved -- the depositional   
   setting is   
   >> > > > > > > > > calm, shallow water, not storm deposits.   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > It sure does, otherwise how can one explain limestone or   
   diatomaceous   
   >> > > > > > > > earth, in mountains.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Over millions of years, diatoms rained down on the ocean floor,   
   slowly   
   >> > > > > > > building up layers of diatomaceous earth. Then plate tectonics   
   lifted   
   >> > > > > > > that ocean floor up thousands of meters into the air, in   
   mountains.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > From rolling knolls, hills, mountains to High Mountains like in   
   the   
   >> > > > > > Rockies or the Himalayas?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Right. As a rule, the higher a mountain chain is, the younger it is.   
   >> > > > > Older mountains get eroded over time to make hills.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > That is an assumption, That is as presumptive as stating that Death   
   Valley   
   >> > > > and other such places used to be the oldest mountains that ever were,   
   >> > > > verses   
   >> > > > the canyons of the deepest seas were the oldest.   
   >> > > The process stops at sea level. In fact, sea level is what mountain   
   >> > > ranges are being eroded down to as they become just low hills rather   
   >> > > than mountains. Troughs between tectonic plates are another matter   
   >> > > altogether.   
   >> >   
   >> > Not at all. They are part of land mass. Same with deserts as well as under   
   >> > water plateaus, Islands, mountain ranges, and volcanos.   
   >>   
   >> Sea level meaning the altitude of sea level, not the presence of a sea   
   >> or ocean.   
   >   
   >There has to be a sea, to have a sea level. ;) And the sea level is different   
   >in various parts of the earth, most notable where the Suez Canal is.   
      
   Sea level doesn't necessarily reach the interior of the continents,   
   though.  The effects of erosion decrease as topographical relief   
   decreases, so the generally low-relief topography of a peneplain can   
   be correlated, approximately, with actual sea level at the coasts.   
      
   >> > In fact right here in So. Calif. there are hills/mountains that tumble   
   into   
   >> > the sea frequently and some of those happenings are created by the sea   
   >> > cutting away at the landmass as there are no sandy beaches to stop them.   
   >>   
   >> That's interesting, but doesn't contradict anything I said.   
   >   
   >But it shows your lack of understanding as to what happens naturally.   
      
   How does it supposedly show that?   
      
   >> > > > > > I have no problem with that, and I know why the mountains were   
   formed.   
   >> > > > > > Had you read the bible you say you are so familiar with, then why   
   has that   
   >> > > > > > fact escaped you?   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Your knowledge is a bit sketchy, since it's based on another sketchy   
   >> > > > > description (assuming you're referring to Psalms 104).   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > No it not based on that.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Then what is it based on, in your view?   
   >> >   
   >> > The design of God as written in scriptures as I stated in the first place.   
   >> > You consider that “sketchy” so if that is your state of mind regarding   
   >> > all things scriptural, then I would be wasting my time giving you   
   something   
   >> > that you would just spit out.   
   >>   
   >> Cite the chapter and verse you're referring to, or stop making excuses   
   >> for why you can't provide scriptural support for your claims.   
   >   
   >Often with you I do not quote each one because you claim to know it all. It   
   >would be disrespectful of me to act like you know very little, correct?   
      
   It's not either or.  So just cite the passage.   
      
   >I never made any excuse about not being able to quote any since I always have   
   >it at hand.   
      
   So continue with that and cite the passage you're talking about.   
      
   >> > > > > > You also dismissed, earlier, the evidence of the Himalayas/ ;)   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > No, I didn't dismiss it, I debunked it.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Really? Like you climbed up there and found that what I was speaking   
   of   
   >> > > > did not exist?   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Weren't you erroneously claiming that the Flood covered the Himalayas?   
   >> >   
   >> > Not in the sense you think of it. At the time of the flood the height of   
   the   
   >> > mountains were described in Scripture. As well as the depth of the water   
   >> > over the mountains.   
   >>   
   >> What sense was it, then?   
   >   
   >In the very sense that you claimed that mountains arise out of plates of the   
   >earth shifting for all great mountains and also claim that hills are just   
   >eroded mountains. Somehow adjusting to ’sea level’.   
      
   Do you understand why the Appalachians are lower than the Rocky   
   Mountains?  And it's not my fault if you don't know what sea level is.   
   >> > Now, taking your keen mind, you can extrapolate the history of   
   the earth,   
   >> > using the bible, and insert the little you know of how mountains are   
   formed   
   >> > and given the understanding that on the highest mountains there are   
   >> > evidences of sea life and put them all together thus realizing that at the   
   >> > time of the Great Flood, that those mountains did not exist at their   
   height   
   >   
   >> > they dwell in this present time. A scaled flow chart would help you   
   immensely.   
   >>   
   >> As long as you're not claiming that the sea fossils found at the tops   
   >> of the Himalayas were deposited by Noah's Flood, there shouldn't be a   
   >> problem, at least on that specific question.   
   >   
   >Guess that you cannot fathom the idea that those mountains did not exist at   
   >the time of Noah. Or did not exist anywhere near the height that it does not.   
      
   I can fathom that. You can't fathom the fact that there was no world   
   wide Noachian deluge.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > What about this:   
   >> > > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > > https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how   
   long-does-it-take-stala   
   >> > > > > > > > > gmites-and-stalactites-to-form   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > That’s what I was talking about.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > So it seems that at least some stalagmites take longer to form   
   than   
   >> > > > > > > what you were familiar with.   
   >> > > > > >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)