The ark and a world wide flood.

Then it's simple, metamorphic rock formed while the flood awaken volcanoes. Basalt was the bedrock of the pre flood world and then there's sedimentary rock.

Most of it yes.

 

Basalt is one of the most common rock types in the world. Basalt is the rock most typical of large igneous provinces. The largest occurrences of basalt are in the ocean floor that is almost completely made up by basalt. Above sea level basalt is common in hotspot islands and around volcanic arcs, specially those on thin crust. However, the largest volumes of basalt on land correspond to continental flood basalts.

Continental flood basalts are known to exist in the Deccan Traps in India, the Chilcotin Group in British Columbia, Canada, the Paraná Traps in Brazil, the Siberian Traps in Russia, the Karoo flood basalt province in South Africa, the Columbia River Plateau of Washington and Oregon.

Many archipelagoes and island nations have an overwhelming majority of its exposed bedrock made up by basalt due to being above hotspots, for example, Iceland and Hawaii.

Ancient Precambrian basalts are usually only found in fold and thrust belts, and are often heavily metamorphosed. These are known as greenstone belts, because low-grade metamorphism of basalt produces chlorite, actinolite, epidote and other green minerals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt

 

It's not all that simple. If most of the sedimentary and metamorphic rocks we see were formed during a single event, then they would be very consistent and continuous. How does flood theory explain all of the extensional detachment, cross-bedding, angular unconformity and other geological features common around the world? Take your time answering this, you'll need it.

http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology

 

The sedimentary deposits left after the Mt St Helens eruption exhibit the same layering / striations yet they were laid down at one time.



heh...
http://www.kidscosmos.org/mars/tour/ftm_st_helens.php

 

Wrong. Examples abound of at least one, and perhaps more catastrophic flood / mud flows on a wide scale.
Research fossil orientation. If anyone can explain that away without flooding, I've got a few more tells.

 

The strata shown in your photo did not come from the 1980 eruption. You can tell because the layers are bent due to geological stress, something even your link admits if you had bothered to read it.

Below is a photo of the stratified layering from the 1980 eruption. You can tell because it is relatively level and even. No discontinuities whatsoever.



If most of the geological layers we find were from a single, global flood, then we should see the same consistent layers. But we don't.

 

There is ample evidence of large scale flooding on a local scale, but no evidence of a catastrophic global flood.

 

So what does this proves?

And how deep are they?

All this and what does it proves?

 

It's as simple as buying a sand window toy. Especially the rectangle ones. You can observe most if not all of the layering in a short period of time.

 

Look...Many, many geologists grew up going to Sunday School and learning about Noah and the worldwide flood and they would be thrilled to prove it so.. There is ZERO evidence for a worldwide flood.. no flood footprint... and they are taking core samples all over the world every day..

Your problem is a lack of education..

 

"Local" vs "wide scale". There's a single sedimentary layer in the US that is 300k sq miles. I consider that wide scale. You may consider it local.

In geology, the "approved" layer mapping demonstrates a world wide consistency. I tend to agree in the multiple flood / upheaval theory based on 80% of the sedimentary layers being out of register even tho there's a worldwide layer of iridium that is thought to have been from the dino extinction impact.

My working theory is that the Earth passed thru a field of asteroids and was pelted repeatedly over x amount of years as the planet passed thru the trail. Possible scenarios from cataclysmic impacts include causing rapid tectonic plate movement, volcanic eruptions, and rapid melting of glaciers.

 

Just throwing this out there, but the Book of Job of the Old testament is thought by many to actually the oldest Bible text. In it, Job 40:15-24 mentions behemoths that fit the description of dinosaurs. Hmm...

 

Regarding flat Earth:

There are many geologists that believe that most mountain ranges were made rapidly and recently. Their point is that if the current rate of formation were a constant then the ranges would have already been overcome by erosion.

 

Good God.. Behemoths and Leviathans are Nile Hippos and Nile Crocodiles.

 

Mmmm, I say no.

 

Amazing that a Christian could be so ignorant in this day and age.

 

I dunno what publick skewl you flunked out of but your reading comprehension is a notch below miserable.

 

It is sad when people try to use science to prove the existence of their god. And again I bring this up, science will never be able to prove or disprove a god, which is why God has no place in science.

 

When 300k sq miles is less than 0.1 percent of Earth's surface, I would consider than local.

So where are the rest of these asteroids now?

You are correct that geologists believe that most mountains were not formed at their current growth rates, but they don't think it was recently either. Some mountain ranges like the Alps were formed 300 million years ago.

 

Geology insists that that and other layers repeat themselves around the globe.

One of the falasies that is perpetuated is that the layers are uniform about the Earth. They're not. About 80% are found out of order. People like Bill Nye the un-science guy that go around lying about it in debates doesn't help science at all.

They're out there.

I reject out of hand radiometric dating of rock. It's been highly politicized to a point where one must accept supposition as fact in order to reach the conclusion demanded in geologic charts. It's especially suspect because of isochron testing with different regimens such as potassium/argon in place of uranium/lead that result in wildly different ages of the same sample. The bottom line is if you have to make assumptions about original composition, parent / daughter isotope ratios over time, and decay rate in an open environment, your results are always suspect.

 

While geologic strata are frequently found out of order due to folding and thrust faults, your 80% claim is pure fiction. Geologists who actually take the time to study them, as opposed to most creationists, can easily see this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAAlDoAtV7Y

The politics of radiometric dating is only a problem because other creationists like you made it political. Isochron testing with different isotopes is how scientists can cross-check and eliminate any errors a single dating method may have.

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

 

Quite simply put, in order for people to believe in YEC or the flood myth they absolutely MUST reject multiple areas of proven scientific FACT and accept the realities of being recognized as purposefully ignorant. This is not meant to be an attack or insult....it is just the way it is in the minds of all intelligent, non religious people.

It is your choice to do so and you will eventually be dismissed once the entertainment value fades.

 

Interesting page in how assumption is gently folded into fact. It's interesting in its hedging, and assumptions like this:

It should read:

Do you see the irony in this in regards to dino soft tissue C14?

 

And, in the same light, the non-religious must ignore relevant contradictions in all regimens of science.

I'm not arguing on any religious basis whatsoever. My point is that "science" is highly politicize to achieved a desired outcome.There is much conflicting real science which needs to be worked. Don't dismiss it out of hand for the agenda.

 

This is a part of the ways science functions. There will ALWAYS be individual aspects of scientific evaluation that are in flux or "Unproven" due to the process. It would seem to me that these people choose to ignore that which IS proven in preference of focusing on the details as of yet in question. By doing so they refuse to grasp the many aspects that deny their chosen beliefs in hopes the unknown will eventually support them, even though this has NEVER happened in 2000+ years.

The science is constantly being updated and new Data provided...chipping away at these ancient stories as it does so. The stories must be adapted to work in this environment and soon become impossible to those who are outside the adaptation attempts.