A Universal Flood - The Genesis Conflict

A Universal Flood - The Genesis Conflict

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 45
Next Last
Legionnaire

Hjo, Sweden

#1 Feb 3, 2009
Professor Walter Veith (zoology) while holding his lecture “A Universal Flood”.
Here he’s talking about the cretaceous layer, which can only form in water;
“The cretaceous layer, is the one layer that is universal. Take note; the cretaceous layer is the one layer that stretches from continent to continent. And in some areas it’s thick, in other areas it’s less thick, but it is universal, and it covers every single continent. And it’s on the same base rock, so, my question to you is this; if that layer is universal it tells us one thing; and that is what?– That the whole world MUST HAVE BEEN UNDER WATER AT THE SAME TIME. And if that is a fact we can really stop this lecture right now. The deal is done. Then there was a universal flood. And that is so…”
This lecture “A universal Flood”, from “The Genesis Conflict” series, can be viewed, and, or purchased here: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-video-Gen...
All these lectures are available to watch:
101 - The Earth In Time and Space
In this video, the big bang theory of origins and its plausibility are discussed. The catastrophic origin of the geological column is presented in full multimedia format. Evidence for rapid water deposition of the layers of the geological column, canyon formation, erosional features, paraconformities (missing time zones,) are discussed together with their age implications. The standard geological view is contrasted with the Biblical view enabling the viewer to make a choice between the two models.(DVD)
102 - A Universal Flood
Science today denies a universal flood, as it would destroy the continuity of the fossil record in the geological column. In this video, evidence for precisely such a universal phenomenon is presented with fascinating video material from modern day catastrophes on a smaller scale. The origin of the petrified forests and their flood implications are also discussed.(DVD)
103 - Bones in Stones
The fossil record is discussed and a catastrophic origin is contrasted with the standard paradigm of evolution over long time periods. Alternative models for the apparent order in the fossil record are presented together with evidence for the sudden appearance of all life forms during the so-called "Cambrian explosion." The origins of dinosaurs, their demise are also discussed, as well as evidence for the simultaneous appearance of numerous life forms are presented in support of the Biblical model.(DVD)
Legionnaire

Hjo, Sweden

#2 Feb 3, 2009
104 - Where Mammals Reigned
In this lecture, the ice ages are discussed and reasons for mammalian distribution and appearance in the upper portion of the geological column are presented. The evolution of man and the time constraints in terms of recolonization of the post flood Earth are also discussed.(DVD)

105 - The Genes of Genesis
Darwinism and natural selection as models for the evolution of life are contrated with origin by design. Biochemical evolution, speciation, and the origin of variety are presented in full multimedia format. This fascinating lecture includes examples of irreducible complexity, discusses the core of genetic problems involved in the evolutionary process, and is presented in simple terms so that even non-scientists can understand the principles involved.(DVD)

106 - Creation to Restoration
In this lecture, the transition from a perfect to a non-perfect world, the origin of death and carnivory, and the biochemical and morphological changes in animals are discussed in depth. Darwin considered parasites and carnivory as evidence for evolution. In this video, the plausibility of an opposite perspective of a fall from perfection to imperfection is discussed. This multimedia production presents startling evidence in support of the Biblical paradigm.(DVD)

107 - A Day To Be Remembered
In this intriguing lecture, the creation week is presented emphasizing the relationship between the Creator and the creation answering question such as : Who is the Creator? What is the significance of the seventh-day of creation and what impact does it have on our lives today? Was the seventh day a Jewish institution or did it originate in Eden? An in-depth rediscovery of the day of rest.(Time: 59 min)

108 - A Spade Unearths the Truth
This video takes us on a fascinating walk through the ages. Archaeological evidence in support of Scripture is presented tracing evidence for the long-disputed stories of the Exodus and the existence of long-forgotten cities and archaeological finds such as the Ebla tablets.(Time: 1:30 min)

Walter J. Veith was a teacher of the evolutionary theory for 19 years, before, due to remarkable circumstances, he became a creationist. Here’s his testimony:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/392...

Hope this will be interesting. Regards Robert J
Legionnaire

Hjo, Sweden

#3 Feb 3, 2009
Sorry. Last link was wrong. Here's Walter Veith's testimony:

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/media-Walter-Ve...
SupaAFC

UK

#4 Feb 3, 2009
A whoooole load of nonsense. They are simply twisting anything they possibly can to fit with a literal account of the bible. That's not science, that's forgery.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#5 Feb 3, 2009
Legionnaire wrote:
Professor Walter Veith (zoology) while holding his lecture “A Universal Flood”.
Here he’s talking about the cretaceous layer, which can only form in water;
“The cretaceous layer, is the one layer that is universal. Take note; the cretaceous layer is the one layer that stretches from continent to continent. And in some areas it’s thick, in other areas it’s less thick, but it is universal, and it covers every single continent....
As a geologist with almost 30 years experience, I can ASSURE you that this is ABSOLUTE nonsense...

The guy who wrote that knows that you don't know... and he knows that you won't check!

Actually...there's so much wrong in that statement that it's hard to know where to start. There are MANY areas with no Cretaceous sediemnts; and many cretaceous sediments are terrestrial sediments.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense...
Legionario

Hjo, Sweden

#6 Feb 4, 2009
Effects of the Floodwaters

A catastrophe of the awesome magnitude proposed by the Biblical flood model would have totally restructured the post-flood world. According to Scripture, the whole world was submerged under water, and the restructuring of the earth to produce the present topography must therefore be a post-flood phenomenon.

Evidence for total submersion of the continents is widespread on earth. Water deposition is a feature of the geological column, but one layer in particular, the Cretaceous layer, points to a transition between the pre- and post-catastrophic events postulated in this model.


The Cretaceous layer comprises chalk deposits consisting largely of calcium carbonate derived from vast deposits of coccolith (algal) shells and other microorganisms with calcium carbonate skeletons. In view of its universal distribution, the Cretaceous layer is evidence of a worldwide shallow sea covering the continents. The calcium carbonate skeletons of certain algae and Foraminifera would only settle out in large quantities if the seas were shallow and conditions favoured algal blooms. Such disturbed ecological conditions would have prevailed in the immediate post-flood era.


The Cretaceous layer varies in thickness, a condition which could have been brought about by currents or by differences in the time that the various areas were submerged under water. In the area of the white cliffs of Dover, the deposits are substantial, possibly indicating that these areas were submerged for a long period. This type of deposition does not occur today, as the calcium carbonate skeletons would dissolve in the deep oceanic waters presently existing. Although no present-day scenario can parallel the Flood model, there are, however, some events occurring today that can throw light on what might have happened in the past. The present disturbed ecology has resulted in some extraordinary algal blooms in waters rich in inorganic salts, derived from agricultural endeavours or other chemical industries. One such area is the Mediterranean, where masses of effluent and chemicals provide environments conducive to massive algal blooms.
Legionario

Hjo, Sweden

#7 Feb 4, 2009
The post-flood waters would have been rich in minerals and decaying organic materials, and in such circumstances, the algal blooms which produced the chalk layers could have been deposited in a very short time. Continental uplift would then have resulted in the drainage of water, recycling of sedimentary deposits and subsequent burial of the chalk layer, plant debris, and decayed animal remains.


Further evidence supporting this model can be found in the tertiary deposits which are packed with fossil graveyards and pieces of broken mammalian bones, a condition which is difficult to explain using the standard evolutionary paradigm, but is to be expected in the case of catastrophism. Moreover, stream-orientation of fossils is evident in the tertiary which further points towards catastrophism.


http://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-ChanceOrDesi...

Most of these theories concentrate on the dinosaurs, but fail to explain the large scale destruction of all the other life forms. Surprisingly, a worldwide destruction by water comprising LARGE SCALE UPHEAVAL OF THE OCEAN FLOOR AND SUBMERGENCE OF THE CONTINENTS is totally absent from all the scientific conjectures regarding this era of extinction, although all the evidence points precisely to such an event. The chalk bed deposits of the cretaceous period (Creta is the Latin for chalk) are proof that everything was underwater.
SupaAFC

UK

#8 Feb 4, 2009
Copy-pasta is a complete waste of both your and my time. You may think these sites are revolutionary, but many experienced posters on these forums have come across them before. Instead of blindly joining the flock, go to your nearest library and do some independent, impartial study for a change.

Note: and I can't believe you're from Sweden. I thought the scandinavian countries were through with this mythological nonsense.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#9 Feb 4, 2009
Hi Robert, Happy New Year. Hope this finds you well.

Kate

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#10 Feb 4, 2009
Legionario wrote:
Effects of the Floodwaters
A catastrophe of the awesome magnitude proposed by the Biblical flood model would have totally restructured the post-flood world. According to Scripture, the whole world was submerged under water, and the restructuring of the earth to produce the present topography must therefore be a post-flood phenomenon.
Evidence for total submersion of the continents is widespread on earth. Water deposition is a feature of the geological column, but one layer in particular, the Cretaceous layer, points to a transition between the pre- and post-catastrophic events postulated in this model.
The Cretaceous layer comprises chalk deposits consisting largely of calcium carbonate derived from vast deposits of coccolith (algal) shells and other microorganisms with calcium carbonate skeletons. In view of its universal distribution, the Cretaceous layer is evidence of a worldwide shallow sea covering the continents. The calcium carbonate skeletons of certain algae and Foraminifera would only settle out in large quantities if the seas were shallow and conditions favoured algal blooms. Such disturbed ecological conditions would have prevailed in the immediate post-flood era.
The Cretaceous layer varies in thickness, a condition which could have been brought about by currents or by differences in the time that the various areas were submerged under water. In the area of the white cliffs of Dover, the deposits are substantial, possibly indicating that these areas were submerged for a long period. This type of deposition does not occur today, as the calcium carbonate skeletons would dissolve in the deep oceanic waters presently existing. Although no present-day scenario can parallel the Flood model, there are, however, some events occurring today that can throw light on what might have happened in the past. The present disturbed ecology has resulted in some extraordinary algal blooms in waters rich in inorganic salts, derived from agricultural endeavours or other chemical industries. One such area is the Mediterranean, where masses of effluent and chemicals provide environments conducive to massive algal blooms.
Robert -

Why the name change...without telling anyone. Are you trying to play that fundamentalist game where they assume different names in order to make it seem there are more people supporting their position.

BTW, your professor is either lying through his teeth or is extremely delusional. There is no evidence of a global "flood" during the Cretaceous or any other time - except possibly in the very early geologic history of the Earht, over a billion years ago.

Besides, even if there was evidence of the Earth being covered in water in the Cretaceous, over 65 million years ago, that would in no way be evidence to support Noah's flood.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#11 Feb 4, 2009
He just posts the same nonsense twice because, if he says it often enough, it becomes true?

There are extensive chalk beds... in a few places. They certainly aren't "flood rocks"...
(Algal blooms = Chalk Deposits???????)

The comment about Tertiary mammals is funny; stream-orientation of fossils means... a stream was present.

Why do folks like this assume that rivers, streams, lakes, etc., didn't exist in the past? If it involved water...IT'S THE FLOOD!

The whole thing is a fantasy that "violates" everything we know about the Earth.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#12 Feb 4, 2009
Fossil Bob wrote:
He just posts the same nonsense twice because, if he says it often enough, it becomes true?
There are extensive chalk beds... in a few places. They certainly aren't "flood rocks"...
(Algal blooms = Chalk Deposits???????)
The comment about Tertiary mammals is funny; stream-orientation of fossils means... a stream was present.
Why do folks like this assume that rivers, streams, lakes, etc., didn't exist in the past? If it involved water...IT'S THE FLOOD!
The whole thing is a fantasy that "violates" everything we know about the Earth.
But, but, but...all flood rocks are water rocks, therefore all water rocks are flood rocks!!![/sarcasm]

Riiiiiiight. And all humans are mammals, therefore all mammals are humans...by the same non-logic. Jeez.
Legionario

Lidköping, Sweden

#13 Feb 4, 2009
Katydid wrote:
Hi Robert, Happy New Year. Hope this finds you well.
Kate
Hallo Kathy!
Happy new year to you 2. Hope everything is fine...
Robert J

Lidköping, Sweden

#14 Feb 4, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Robert -
Why the name change...without telling anyone. Are you trying to play that fundamentalist game where they assume different names in order to make it seem there are more people supporting their position.
Hallo Darwin! For no particular reason. Maybe to see if you would do the connection...:-)
Actually, I'm saying in the end of the second post that it's me. Take care

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#15 Feb 4, 2009
Robert J wrote:
<quoted text>
Hallo Darwin! For no particular reason. Maybe to see if you would do the connection...:-)
Actually, I'm saying in the end of the second post that it's me. Take care
Apologies. I didn't read that part. And I have seen so many creationists try to pull the trick I have mentioned, using different names to try and make it seem like they have a consensus.

I don't have problem with changing your screen name as long as you make it clear who you are. I have thought about using a more mathematical name at times, but have used this one on Topix so long I have so far decided not to.

However, I do want to make it quite clear that there is no such evidence as your professor is claiming. Yes, there are many places that show what is now land was at one time covered by sea. But never all at once.

I will make a caveat to what I just said. Some geologist think there was a time in the early Earth's history, before the formation of continents, that seas covered almost the whole Earth. The Moon was much closer, making for huge tides. These tides likely battered the soft volcanic rocks of the early Earth to pieces, leaving only islands that would soon disappear.

However, once granite started showing up in volcanic output, continents started forming. Granite is much harder. Plus, as the Moon pulled away from the Earth, the tides were less severe.

Once the continents first formed - which was a LONG time ago, there is no evidence of all land being covered by water at one time.
La Legion Etranger

Lidköping, Sweden

#16 Feb 4, 2009
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
(Algal blooms = Chalk Deposits???????)
It’s funny. You claim to be an authority on geology, over 30 years of experience. But you can’t even interpret a simple text in English.
Anyway, Bob, the posts are not for you. I don’t expect you to watch these seminars. Nor do I expect any other of your evolution believing friends, who are regularly keeping a watching eye over this forum to see if there are any creationist newcomers they can trash with their well chosen “terms”.

The posts are for all persons who seek an alternative explanation. Those who don’t trust in the scientific community.
Seekers who will not accept the delusions of established “science”.
After all, you are probably immune to alternative explanations. 30 years of molding the mind with these philosophical ideas has done a firm job. Only a miracle (it means that you will need God’s help) can make you see things in another way. Strange happenings caused Walter to question his belief in evolution, and to see things differently. What held him in his evolution belief was a strong hatred for God. Take a look at Bob of Quantum faith for example; he knows all about that. But Walter found out that God was not an evil tyrant; like all of you see the God of creation.
Your problem; what is keeping you in this belief, is for one thing that you all think it’s about winning an argument. In other words; too proud to admit that you can be wrong. You yourself say you hold this belief because the facts found in nature are the evidences. This is your “war cry”. The FACTS show us!
But I think that the interpretation of these facts shows something else, no matter how convincing you may be with your “intelligently” chosen “scientific” rhetoric.
La Legion Etranger

Lidköping, Sweden

#17 Feb 4, 2009
You don’t understand that some of the creationists visiting this forum does it for the sake of your souls. Not for the sake of winning an argument.
In your eagerness to stay above the intellectual level of the “fairy tale believers”, you don’t notice that you yourself gets more and more entangled in the snare of the fowler, shutting yourself out of paradise, throwing your opportunity to gain eternal life in the waste bin, just because you couldn’t control your own pride.

Aren’t you also a Christian, of the Theistic evolution belief? I remember the first post when you “answered” one of mine. You certainly revealed your “Christian” character very well. And I can see you’ve ameliorated.
Still the same charmer. Keep in mind: Not everyone saying; “Lord, Lord,…” will enter into the Kingdom.
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole thing is a fantasy that "violates" everything we know about the Earth.
Maybe it violates everything you know about the earth. But you certainly don’t know everything about the earth, do you?! As well as you know nothing of what the God of nature can do with His creation…
After all, if He is the Creator, He wouldn’t be bound by the laws of nature, since He’s the Originator of these laws as well…

If the story of the Bible is true, one would expect a tremendous resistance against it from the “learned” of this earth…
Robert J

Lidköping, Sweden

#18 Feb 4, 2009
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I will make a caveat to what I just said. Some geologist think there was a time in the early Earth's history, before the formation of continents, that seas covered almost the whole Earth. The Moon was much closer, making for huge tides. These tides likely battered the soft volcanic rocks of the early Earth to pieces, leaving only islands that would soon disappear.

However, once granite started showing up in volcanic output, continents started forming. Granite is much harder. Plus, as the Moon pulled away from the Earth, the tides were less severe.
You realize, Darwin, that this is just philosophy. Just like you say; “Some geologists think…”
To me, it sounds very far-fetched. By the facts, found in nature, this thesis can not be proven at all. It’s speculation.

Rather, the facts found in nature, are in favour of the biblical account, than of “let’s flee as fast as we can from the Creator - made up stuff” like this. Sorry to say so, but that’s the way I see it.

Anyway Darwin, we will not agree on this. I will never agree with the theory of evolution. Not only because of my belief in creation, but rather because of my experiences of answered prayer, not to say how I’ve learned about the exact fulfilling of biblical prophecy. There you go.
Not only what creationist scientists are saying (by the way, about the granite; I believe in the findings of Robert Gentry), but my faith is even more established through the witness of history - the fulfilled prophecies.

You may also say that you will never leave the belief in the theory of evolution, but keep in mind; many evolutionists, who are now creationists, has said just that…

Anyway, I must say, to your favour, that you and Katydid have a more Christian mindset than many so called Christians, I’ve seen visiting this forum. I would also like to give some credit to Hexene, who was really bad in the beginning, but who became more gentle after some time.

Take a look at Walter’s testimony. After all, if you find that nothing can change your belief, then what have you got to lose…?!

Regards

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#19 Feb 4, 2009
La Legion Etranger wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s funny. You claim to be an authority on geology, over 30 years of experience. But you can’t even interpret a simple text in English.
Anyway, Bob, the posts are not for you. I don’t expect you to watch these seminars. Nor do I expect any other of your evolution believing friends, who are regularly keeping a watching eye over this forum to see if there are any creationist newcomers they can trash with their well chosen “terms”.
We have all read material like this multiple times. I have yet to see a single creationist explain how a flood produces deposits such as chalk or limestone. These are deposits full of life, too much life to live at the same time. For instance:
"Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.ht...
How does a flood produce sea lilies? Care to explain? How does a flood produce 2,000 feet of sea lilies in one spot?
Such formations demonstrate how wrong flood geology is. They can't explain these formations. The only way to create these deposits is over millions of years. That's a fact.

We could also discuss extreme gooseneck meanders in the Grand Canyon complex which totally destroy a catastrophic formation for that canyon. We could discover the chalk formations in Europe. We could discuss the Karoo formation in Africa. Each one of these is impossible for a flood to produce, and they are continuously ignored by creationists like your self.

Tell you what, just answer one question for me. Describe for me a hypothetical geologic formation that this global flood could NOT have produced. IOW, show us how flood geology can be falsified.
The Dude

UK

#20 Feb 5, 2009
Robert J wrote:
You may also say that you will never leave the belief in the theory of evolution, but keep in mind; many evolutionists, who are now creationists, has said just that…
Nice exercise in rhetoric, Rob. Did you know that back in the eighties, creation scientists were sent into the field (geologists) and told to find evidence that supported the Biblical Flood? They couldn't find any. The scientists themselves later accepted evolution. BUT, they were still believers.

You see, you see this as being about religion. But science isn't about religion. It's about discovering facts about the world around us. And you don't have to give up your faith for that. So it is unnecessary for people to come here to "save our souls". And in the end, an individual's relationship with God is between them and God. No-one else need interfere.

But it is true, that science contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. Quite simply because the Bible cannot be supported with facts if taken literally. But if one recognises parts of the Bible to be more allegorical than literal, then you don't have to give up your faith just because you accept evolution (or any other science).

Oh, and these posts aren't for you either - we post for those who want to be educated on facts. If they prefer religious apologetics, they'll go and see your site.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 45
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 min Eagle 12 - 78,500
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 59 min Science 162,980
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Dogen 222,154
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 1,326
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr Dogen 779
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 hr Science 32,431
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web