Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

Dear Tranquility Base;Yes I believe that the flood waters covered the entire earth, but since I believe the flood was result of a sudden melting stage in the late ice age, I also believe that there were large ice sheets and glaciers floating in the flood waters. I allow for the possibility that some of the higher elevations may have had their covering of water in the form of ice. But ether way, flooding the entire earth does not require 'reshaping' the earth. The flood in most areas probably occurred as a steady rise in sealevel over a few months, the tide just basically just kept coming in and then went back out the same way.You use Quickverse! I picked up a copy of that once and took it right back off my computer, worst Bible program I ever came a cross, yecch! The "Bible Library" suite is pretty good with 14 Bibles and only costs 20 bucks. Yes BibleGateway is very nice, but I hate to send so much time on the web using it.On the flood baptizing the earth, my point was that it is somebody's interpretation, the Bible does not say that the planet was baptized by the deluge, it is not a biblical teaching. So one can not use this to try to prove anything since the Bible never states it and it is in conflict with basic biblical requirements for baptism. I will agree that the symbolism is nice, it makes a good illustration, but it is not a scriptural teaching and hence offers no support for YEC flood theories.On the trees and the former ground levels, I wasn't referring to the Hermite formation. I was referring to the other formations such as the Yellowstone one and others where this type of evidence has been found. You haven't explained how the trees can sink down and end up lined up with the different former surface layers. You also haven't explained why only the stumps are found, if the trees had sunk all at once, the trees would extend up through the surface layers above them, but they don't.

quote:

---

If you want to rule out the Scriptual timing on that basis that is your decision. Everything else about the Scriptual model is looking too good to rule it out as you do. Baumgardner et al even suggest that much of the heat was expelled through transport of water as superheated jets into space. This may even account for comets the existence of which are a mainstream problem with an artifical solution.

---

I am not ruling out scriptural timing, I am ruling out YEC flood theories. This is the biggest problem with YEC, wrapping it up in the Bible and claiming it is divinely inspired, when it is nothing more than a human interpretation. Cute but not a very bright idea on the heat expelling jets, for how do you expel the heat up out through the atmosphere without heating up the atmosphere itself? And if you expel all the heat out into space, you would have to expel all the hot water as well. You could have the now frozen water reenter the atmosphere, but the heat of reentry will still heat the atmosphere. The YEC flood theories heat problems are insolvable due to their requiring too much to happen in too short of a time.Creating comets by expelling water from the earth is crazy! The earth is far too small to account for the vast numbers of comets that are in our solar system. The earth is also located far too close to the sun to account for the vast cloud of comets far away from the sun. Where did the huge amount of energy come from that it would take to push the comets up the gravity well from earth out to the outer reaches of the solar system? Also how did those ejected comets end up in nice distance circular orbits? I also know of no problems with mainstream theories on the origin of comets, the theories are simple, well supported by evidence and very logical.

quote:

---

localized regions devoid of radioisotopes and heating

---

The amount of heating you are talking would unavoidably effect the entire earth. Our world wind patterns are created by the differences in temperature caused by uneven heating of the earth's surface. As the temperature difference is increased, the force that drives the wind and storms is increased, perhaps you have heard of how the increasing temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect is predicted to increase the number and severity of storms. Even the temperature differences proposed by the worst greenhouse models are nothing compared with the temperature differences you are proposing. Such extreme differences would have created winds of near supersonic speeds, storms of unearthly power, such massive movements of air would have rapidly spread your extreme high temperatures to all of the earth's surface and rendered this planet as nearly hostile to life as the planet Venus.

quote:

---

Catastrophic spreading at rift valleys that traverse the globe over 40 days could generate global rain on a scale never witnessed before or since. You're just making unfounded statements wm!

---

Me, making unfounded statements? I think you may have a rafter in your eye on this one. How would a spreading rift valley create rain? The water content of lava is very low, far less than one percent, so no matter how much YEC flood rifting is theorized it fails as a major source of water.

quote:

---

The flood didn't need to 'disolve' rock it carved out rock violently at the start of the flood as eveident at the PC/Cambrian layer, for example at Grand Canyon. There is evidence of incredible violence at this boundary.

---

No there is not. How did the flood violently carve out solid rock? Look at Niagara falls, since the end of the ice age it has cut it's way back into solid rock a few feet each year. Now Niagara limestone is not really a very hard rock, and here we have the water from all five of the great lakes pouring over these few small edges of limestone. Why isn't the rock beneath the falls 'violently carved out'? Here for thousands of years a truly enormous amount of water has been poured, and yet, none of the YEC effects has happened. And if the flood removed rock in large pieces, where did all the supposed flood sediments come from? The muds, the silts, the sands, where did they come from? Where are the huge piles of giant flood gravel?

quote:

---

Temporary habitation occurred in between surges as it did mainstream.

---

Mainstream theories have from hundreds to millions of years occurring between your 'surges.' Since the habitation involves many generations of animals, long term forest growth, the evidence only fits mainstream theories and is incompatible with YEC.I had stated "The creative days described in Genesis are not literal days as shown by the fact that we are still in the seventh day." to which you replied.

quote:

---

Clearly you are now taking a particular, and non-standard, theological view of God's rest day.

---

Actually this is probably accepted by the majority of christian religions including many who are YEC, you may want to check with your church leaders on this. Nearly all christian religions agree on this point since it is the goal of christianity to enter into God's rest day. The apostle Paul explains this point in Hebrews chapter 4. In chapter 3 he explained how due to their disobedience the unfaithful Jews who rebelled against God did not enter into God's rest day, in chapter 4 he explains how Christians can. If God's rest day, the seventh day, was only 24 hours long it would have ended long ago and it would not be possible for Christians to still enter into it.I had stated."Use of the term day in regard to creation is also shown to refer to long periods of time rather than actual literal days is shown by Genesis 2:4 where the six creative days are referred to as one day." To which you replied.

quote:

---

It doesn't say that in the Bible translation I have!
Why don't you quote it and we'll look at it. Gen ch 2 is clearly a fill in of details for Gen ch 1!

---

Here are seven Bibles that use the word 'day' in Genesis 2:4.
King James
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,-- American Standard
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.-- Revised Standard
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,-- Young's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;-- Darby's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,-- Webster's Bible
Genesis 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.--New World Translation
Genesis 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.It is wise to look at more than one Bible translation, many use the word 'day' in this verse. In the Bible the word 'day' can refer to a literal day or a much long period of time, such as 'in our fore father's day' (2 Peter 3:4). Genesis 50:20 states that one day for God is as a 1,000 years and a 1,000 years as one day. Clearly God's days are not the same as our days. At John 8:56 Jesus referred to his time preaching on earth as a 'day'. At 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 Paul tells the Corinthians that they live in the day of salvation and not to miss it's purpose. At 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Paul warns the congregation not to be deceived that the 'day' of Jehovah or the last 'day' has not yet come. Frequently the Bible uses the word day to refer to a period of time much longer than a literal day. There is no scriptural support for interpreting the creative days as literal days.I am reading the book "Igneous Petrology" second edition by Alexander R. Mcbirney, on pages 186-188 the Bushveld complex in South Africa is described, it is a massive igneous intrusion, a huge mass of magma that came up and forced itself between the existing layers of rocks. Since the overlaying sediments that existed at the time were disturbed by this intrusion, you will probably say it happened around the time of the flood, yet my book states "its original thickness must have exceeded eight kilometers. The time required to crystallize this huge mass is thought to have been on the order of 200,000 years." Now contained in this complex is a unit know as the Merensky reef, which contains rich ores of platinum and gold. The only way these trace elements could be so concentrated in this unit is that the Bushveld intrusion cooled very slowly which allowed time for progressive crystallization and concentration to occur. Now under YEC there is no way this could have happened, if YEC were true the mineral wealth of South Africa would not exist. Hence each gold krugerrand is solid proof that YEC is wrong since under YEC it is impossible for them to exist.--WmScott.

Dear Percy;

quote:

---

I by no means thought I was making a definite identification,

---

No you did not make a "definite" identification, but you did offer Asteromphalus heptactis as better a choice than my identification as Asterolampra marylandica. My point was that your alternative choice to my identification, was another marine diatom, which despite all your hedging, implies that what the pictured idem most looks like is a marine diatom. Now if you had offered as an alternative a picture of some mundane soil organism that more closely matched my picture than Asterolampra marylandica did, that would be another case all together. I of course realize that any support that you may have given was purely unintentional.--WmScott

Dear Tranquility Base;

quote:

---

Have we established that the Yellowstone forests are sitting at 27 levels or is it simply an estimaton that there were approximately 27 gneerations of forest? I severely doubt that there are 27 neat ground levels. I would love to see the data on that.

---

Yes of course there are 27 'neat ground levels'. This type of thing is not that uncommon, you have a forested area with a steep hill above, every so often a flash flood or heavy rain brings down a surge of mud or land slide that buries the old ground surface by a few feet. This kills the old trees which rot away above ground, and new trees grow on the new surface. The mainstream theory on this is so simple it is borning, while the YEC theory is unable to explain this in any detail. For explain, you still haven't explained why the trees don't extend through the layers above or why the trees line up with old surface layers.

quote:

---

The Bible describes a 76 generation geneaogy from Adam to Christ in one chapter of the gospel of Luke.

---

Yes it does, but that doesn't give any support to YEC at all, it is the time before Adam that is in question.

quote:

---

The jet mechanism is a heat transfer mechanism. The hottest water will be the water near the thousands of kilometres of rift valleys that gets transported into space.

---

That doesn't explain anything, it is still a cute but not a very bright idea on the heat expelling jets, for how do you expel the heat up out through the atmosphere without heating up the atmosphere itself? And if you expel all the heat out into space, you would have to expel all the hot water as well. You could have the now frozen water reenter the atmosphere, but the heat of reentry will still heat the atmosphere. So far this still sounds like magic.

quote:

---

The Ort cloud is just a construction of theorists trying to save the long-age model.
And you know of the top of your head the volume of water in the observed comets? Remember we don't need to have the Ort storehouse of comets, we only need the onserved ones.

---

The Ort cloud was largely theoretical, but now with the larger telescopes and the mapping of some of the larger members of the comet cloud, it is no longer merely theoretical. Perhaps you remember the Shoemaker-Levy comet impacts on Jupiter in 92? The comets are out there and many of them are quite large judging from size of the impacts on Jupiter from mere fragments of one comet. Mapping of the comets in the outer solar system has revealed comets the size of moons, in fact they would be moons if they were in the appropriate orbit. The total amount of water these comets would contain if they were pure water ice, would be several times the amount of water on the earth. That brings up another point, the comets are not pure water ice, they contain many other types of ice such as ammonia. These other gases are common on the gas giants and moons of the outer solar system, but they do not exist in any appreciable amounts on earth. In fact, the comets have pretty much the same composition as the outer planets and their moons which would indicate a common origin. The lack of many of these compounds on earth would clearly preclude a earthly origin.Rift valleys would be totally unable to supply the energy necessary to launch comets into deep space. Heat and kinetic energy are two different forms of energy. All the heat in the world will not lift an object into the sky unless you can explain a way of converting the heat energy into kinetic energy. For example a exploding volcano such as Krakatoa goes off like a bomb and fragments of the cone can be thrown high into the air, some have even theorized that a huge volcanic blast could perhaps put a few volcanic rocks in low earth orbit. But I fail to see any such mechanism for a spreading rift valley.

quote:

---

Orbits are automatic once you escape Earth with insufficent energy to escape the solar system. Circularity per se? I don't know of the top of my head. Someone would have to study this propoerly.

---

The Russia space program has repeatedly demonstrated over the years just how difficult it is to achieve circular orbits around the sun and other bodies in the solar system. Ever hear of a elliptical orbit? Achieving a circular orbit takes the right amount of momentum in the right direction. The direction is very very narrow, just a little bit off and the orbit is non circular or elliptical with a high and a low point. Launching something straight up from the earth's surface with no course changes will stand very little chance of achieving a circular orbit in the outer solar system. As rockets that carry earth satellites are launched, they generally turn towards the east to build enough eastward or rotational motion to achieve orbit, if they were just shot straight up, a geosynchronous orbit is about the only orbit they could try to reach. This will hopefully show you that the direction of launch or trajectory is just as important as velocity. My point here is that to put objects in nice distance circular orbits takes enormous precision as well as enormous power. Wildly spraying jets of water stand no chance of doing this, it is mathematically impossible.

quote:

---

there should be no comets in the mainstream scenario!

---

You keep saying this, but you don't say why. There are no problems in the "mainstream scenario" that I know of. So what is your problem here?

quote:

---

Agreed. If this is how God did it then he would have arranged it to enable survivability.

---

So you agree that without divine intervention the YEC flood would have steamed cooked the entire planet? Since I accept the possibility of intervention, I will allow you to use miracles in explaining YEC flood theories, but I do ask that we keep track of where and how many you invoke. Should I put you down for one miracle for the heat problems and one for the formation of the Bushveld complex?

quote:

---

Catastrophic sea-foor spreading at rift valleys would undoubtedly generate huge jets of steam and rain. You guys can't have it both ways: 'You have too much energy output!' + 'How can you boil water for rain?'

---

How? How will 'Catastrophic sea-foor spreading at rift valleys' 'generate huge jets of steam and rain.'? At a rift valley you have a crack in the continental crust where it is being pulled apart and magma from below is coming up to the surface, under YEC this would be the instant high speed creation of the Atlantic ocean. Now as the landmasses were supposedly pulled apart and a whole ocean of hot magma was exposed to the surface, where did the water come from? The magma does contain trapped gases including some steam under enormous pressure from the weight of the earth crust above, removal of the crust from above the magma causes the gases to violently expand and explode. This would result under YEC in the whole present Atlantic ocean being one vast sea of violently erupting magma with great ocean wide jets of super heated hot jets of gas blasting up from the newly exposed magma surface. An unbelievable amount of hot ash and lava bombs would be shot up into the air. The earth would be turned into hell on earth as the astrosphere would be heated to extremely high temperatures (>200 F) earth wide in just a few days and the ash would fall earth wide blackening out the sun and the air would be filled with poisonous gases. Contained in the released super heated volcanic gases would be steam, which would be dispersed in the atmosphere and if the planet ever cooled down again, it would fall as rain. But this rain would be a light rain, for there is very little water in magma (>1%), so to flood the earth from this source, you would first need to flood it a hundred times over in lava. The 'jets' of hot gases would be like what is seen in some volcanic eruptions, they can shoot high into the atmosphere, but they carry mostly ash and very little water. Due to their very nature, being expanding gas, they can not extend out into space. So there is no way volcanic activity can put water into space.

quote:

---

Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically.

---

I see that some other posters here have already show the errors in this, and even if it had happened, what would it have to do with the YEC flood? Mt St Helens was not a spreading rift valley, what would it have to do with a flood of water carving rock?

quote:

---

We see the geo-col as a snapshot of life. It is simply a mainstream assumption that it is a time series.

---

A mainstream assumption? They have all the evidence, you have nothing and I mean nothing, no backing of evidence at all.

quote:

---

There is another rest day. It is not the same one. You failed to quote the most commonly used translation. In the NIV it appears as:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-

​

In the other translations it is clear that the meaning is not what you imply. In consecutive verses the Bible tells us it was 7 days and then 1. But the one is for 'the heavens and the Earth', not necessarily the filling out of it which took the rest of the creiton week. You come close to mocking Scripture. It is utterly clear what is meant in Gen 2:4.

---

In the next quote below you will go on to argue that each creative day was a 1000 years long, so it would seem that you do agree that the biblical term 'day' can stand for longer periods of time. This does weaken your argument above, for if a 'day' could have been a 1000 years, why could it not have been longer? And why couldn't the time span of six days be referred to as one day in Genesis 2:4? The wording used in this verse "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" is all inclusive, the entire process is what is being referred to, not just a part there of. Let's talk about the seventh day after your next quote.

quote:

---

Agreed. I actually believe the creation week was 7000 years and that we are in the 2nd 'redemptive' week which is just about into it's 7th day which I believe will be the millenium of Revelations. This is not a standard view of course although it has been discussed from time to time in Christendom. I could give you a dozen reasons for this understadning of Heb 4, Rev and 2 Pet some other time.

---

Now this is a considerable change from six literal days of creation to 6000 years which would double the YEC estimate for the age of the earth. Now we both believe that man has been on the earth for about 6000 years, now if you are right, God created man and then took a 1000 year rest day and then went back to work for 6000 years. That would mean we have about a thousand years to go before God has his second rest day. (1000 + 6000 = 7000) If this was true we would not be currently living in God's rest day, yet the Bible states that we are. (Hebrews 4:1-11) Also in the Bible we are told that each creation day began and ended, so where in the Bible does it say that the seventh day ended? And where is any mention made of these other days that you are talking about. Yes you definitely have a non standard view point, in fact it appears to be completely non Biblical without any scriptural support at all. Which supports what I have been saying all along, YEC has no scriptural support, it is a theory without any supporting evidence at all.--WmScott

[I wrote the following earlier in the week, it is already 'out dated' by board posts, but I liked the way it came out so I will post it as it was written.]Dear Percy;Reading your posts is like watching a cat trying to back itself out of a bag over its head. Eventually the cat learns that backing doesn't work and that the way to get the bag off is to bat it off. The moral of the story is that to keep denying or backing up, will not extricate you from the logical conundrum you have managed to work yourself into. There are two simple ways to 'bat the bag off your head," one is to simply admit that yes it does look like a marine diatom, the second is to find a picture of some micro organism that looks more like the picture than the marine diatom that I say it is. In fairness I will say that the second choice is really a dead end, since to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. Your pride will of course prevent you from taking the first choice, hence the humorous cat backing up reenactment will probably continue.--WmScottYou certainly are no dummy Percy, you found your way out on your own, very good. However, the algae pictures you posted does not look more like the picture I posted than ether of the two marine diatom pictures we had each posted earlier. But how about a link to the page where you found the pictures? And how about some species names? Even though I disagree with your new identification, I would like to check it out in more detail.Know any "qualified geologist or biologist practiced at identifying diatoms," that would be willing to at a look at my findings? I would love to get in touch with one willing to look.I will wait till the material on use of diatoms is posted before I comment on it.--WmScott

Dear Tranquilty Base;On the Yellowstone fossil forests, there are definite ground layers and the trees have not been moved as the following link and post shows.

quote:

---

Yellowstone National Park (U.S.) Fossil Forests
Some literature and other presentations claim the stacked "fossil forests" in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, United States, do not represent separate, successional forest development. For example, Steve Austin makes this claim in a video tape available from the ICR. Rather than being buried in place, it is claimed that these stumps are transported, and therefore they could be deposited in a short time, rather than the long time it would take for growth of a forest, burial, and growth and burial of each of the succeeding forests.
This claim is not supported by the evidence. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place (see Fritz, 1980 and the citations in Fritz, 1984, quoted below). The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps.
Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common). Distinguishing the two (or even recognizing the presence of both) is not difficult. To simply say, "tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed", is incorrect. The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport.
References and quotes
Fritz, W.J., 1980. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, v.8, p.309-313.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place. Geology, v.12, p.159-162.
Fritz, W.J., 1984. Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place." Geology, v.12, p.638-639.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984. Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place." Geology, v.12, p.639.
[Both authors agree there is plenty of sedimentological evidence Specimen Ridge examples are in place, and that *some* of the trees at *other* sections in the area might be transported.]
Fritz, 1984:
"In many places not cited by Yuretich, I have also interpreted the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge to be in place and have stated that the forests [besides Specimen Ridge] are best explained by _both_ in situ and transported wood (Fritz, 1980a, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984). Furthermore, I have proposed ways to differentiate in situ from transported stumps (Fritz, 1981a, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984); by all these criteria, the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge are in place."
[Some other locations may have transported stumps]
Yuretich, 1984:
"Fritz's Comment clears up any lingering misunderstandings that may have arisen as a result of the original publication about the Yellowstone fossil forests that triggered this series of exchanges (Fritz, 1980c). He has clearly stated elsewhere (Fritz, 1980a, 1982) that the Specimen Ridge trees are preserved in place, and I am glad this statement now appears in _Geology_."
"Many details of the facies relationships in the Lamar River Formation [the unit the Yellowstone fossil forests occur in] still must be studied, but I think we have at last gotten to the root of the forest problem, and no longer need to be stumped by the origin of these fossil trees."

---

Found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.htmlThat should clear it up for you, if you need further evidence, check and read the cited references. On checking this issue on the web, I found it has become a bit of a hot topic with YEC due to the obvious implications. If the Yellowstone site was an isolated event, it would help the YEC point of view, the fact that a number of stacked fossil forests are known around the world, indicates that the YEC explanation is stretched beyond the breaking point in trying to account for them all. For example.

quote:

---

Repeated flood events and fossil forests at Curio Bay (Middle Jurassic), New Zealand
Mike Pole

​

Department of Botany, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia

​

Received 24 January 2000; accepted 6 December 2000 Available online 11 October 2001.

​

Abstract
During the Middle Jurassic, the regional environment of Curio Bay, southeast South Island, New Zealand, was a fluvial plain marginal to volcanic uplands. Intermittent flashy, poorly-confined flood events buried successive conifer forests. With the termination of each flood, soils developed and vegetation was reestablished. In most cases, this developed into coniferous forest. In approximately 40 m of vertical section, 10 fossil forest horizons can be distinguished, highlighting a type of fluvial architecture which is poorly documented. Flood-basin material is minimal, but a short-lived floodbasin lake is inferred to have developed within the interval of study. Paleocurrent indicators suggest enclosure of the basin on more than one side. Sedimentation style suggests a relatively dry (less than humid but not arid) climate with seasonal rainfall.

---

www.sciencedirect.com...#1 {Fixed and/or shorted link - Adminnemooseus}From the description it sounds like you would need ten of your flood surges with time for a forest to grow in-between each surge just to account for this one example.

quote:

---

Three buried forests of the Last Glacial Stage and middle Holocene at Ooyazawa on northern Honshu Island of Japan
Shuichi Noshiro , Mitsuo Suzuki and Sei-ichiro Tsuji

​

Abstract
Three extensive buried forests of the Late Quaternary were unearthed at Ooyazawa, Aomori, in the northern part of Honshu Island of Japan during construction of a flood water reservoir. The lower and middle buried forests were formed by activities of the Towada Volcano and dated from the early period of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Late Glacial Period, respectively. The upper buried forest was formed as a result of sea level changes and dated from the Early Jomon Period of middle Holocene. Picea and Larix dominated in the lower and middle buried forests of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Late Glacial Period, accompanied by occasional Abies. In the middle buried forest Picea and Larix grew evenly intermixed, and Larix trees were larger (up to 84 cm in stem diameter) than Picea trees (up to 33 cm in stem diameter). The taxonomic composition of the lower and middle forests was similar to that of the buried forests on the eastern slope of the Towada Volcano of the Late Glacial Period. The buried forests of northern Honshu Island, as well as those of south to central Honshu Island, indicate that Picea—Larix forests were the dominant vegetation through the Last Glacial Maximum to the Late Glacial Period on central to northern Honshu Island. In the upper buried forest of the middle Holocene, Fraxinus and Alnus dominated, accompanied by Juglans, Castanea, Quercus, Fagus, Magnolia, Hydrangea, and Acer. This upper buried forest contemporaneously formed woody peat below the forest floor. According to a pollen analytical study at Ooyazawa, similar buried forests continually established themselves after frequent destructions by flooding for at least 1000 years of middle Holocene. Lowland forests of Fraxinus and Alnus that simultaneously formed woody peat grew extensively in the Kanto Plain of central Honshu Island during the middle Holocene. The upper buried forest at Ooyazawa was the first record of this type of lowland forest outside the Kanto Plain and showed that the establishment of marsh forests with contemporaneous woody peat was a general phenomenon in a large area of Honshu Island during the middle Holocene.

---

www.sciencedirect.com...#2 {Fixed and/or shortened link - Adminnemooseus}Sounds like only three forest layers, but it does show that layered fossil forests is a fairly common finding, in northern Wisconsin we have at least one that I can think of. When you look at detail at these former forests, including their numbers and locations, it is a problem for which YEC has no real answers.On the comets, I find I will have to make a retraction on part of my argument, the composition of comet gases is simular to volcanic gases.

quote:

---

"This is not identical to--though definitely reminiscent of--the composition of the volcanic gases on the Earth, "

---

Britannica on comet gases.Now in your arguments on comets you have stated that there are no comet clouds or belts in the solar system, that these are purely theoretical inventions by mainstream science to save their failing theories and that the comets actually are made up of water (and other gases) ejected from the earth at the time of the flood. I gather if this is your position, confirmation of the existence of Oort cloud or Kuiper Belt comets would be fatal to YEC. Well here is another stake in the heart of YEC, the following is part of a news story on the discovery of a very large and distance comet.

quote:

---

"The new object is much bigger, about half the size of Pluto, and is very distant from the Earth.
The asteroid was first spotted in May by astronomers at the Cerro Tololo Observatory, Chile."
"Follow-up studies put its size at 1,200 kilometres or more across. "
"As a Kuiper Belt Object, it must be given a mythological name associated with creation."

---

I would like to point out that with a diameter of 1,200 kilometers this one comet would contain about 65% of the earth's present ocean volume. Another problem is this is not the only distance comet found.

quote:

---

Objects of this type are icy planetary bodies that orbit beyond planet Neptune in the distant region of the Solar System known as the Kuiper Belt. More than 400 such objects are currently known

---

http://www.eso.org/...each/press-rel/pr-2001/phot-27-01.html
If we were to add up the volumes of all these known comets, we would have a figure larger than the current amount of water on the earth. And with 400 identified comets, the existence of distant comet belts is a matter of fact, YECs will have to go back to the drawing board, again. It should be also remembered that Pluto is the largest member of the Kuiper Belt and there is quite a bit of scientific controversy whether it should be counted as a planet or as a comet. Pluto has the same composition as the other Kuiper Belt comets and obviously would have the same origin. Pluto has a volume equal to four and half times the current volume of water on the earth. Even for YEC it must seem impossible for such a large volume of water to have come from the earth.On the rifts valleys blasting water into space, I see you want to use a "guyser effect due to steam pressure build up" I guess you have never been to Yellowstone which has something like 90% of the world's geysers. Geysers can shoot water hundreds of feet into the air, but that is pretty much about it. Under extreme conditions a theoretical super geyser could maybe reach thousands of feet into the air, still well short of even the upper atmosphere. Also geysers only occur in heated rock, not lava, so they would not occur with the sudden creation of the YEC Atlantic ocean. As I said earlier on volcanic activity venting water into space. "The 'jets' of hot gases would be like what is seen in some volcanic eruptions, they can shoot high into the atmosphere, but they carry mostly ash and very little water. Due to their very nature, being expanding gas, they can not extend out into space. So there is no way volcanic activity can put water into space." TB, it just doesn't work, it is completely impossible for comets to have formed from water somehow ejected from the earth, there are so many impossibilities with this theory it is so bad that it manages to even make YEC look worse than it already does. My advice is to dump this turkey of a theory before it pulls the rest of YEC down with it.The Busheld complex was the igneous intrusion complex in South Africa that I talked about in an earlier post.

quote:

---

How can you claim to have examined the YEC scenario if you continually misinterperet it?

---

There are so many YEC scenarios with mutually conflicting ideas, it is a sea of chaos. Perhaps you could provide a link or links to web sites that have the particular scenarios that you support, that way we can save some time and I will not be shooting so many holes in the sky.

quote:

---

It is far more reasonable to assume that 7 days is 7 thousands years (in the context of 2 Pet 3) than tha t7 days is one day.

---

You are too literal in your interpretation as shown by the use of the word 'day' in this chapter to refer to different time periods, such as the day of our forefathers and the day of judgment, both references to time periods the length of which is not stated.

quote:

---

Almost, but you're 1000 years out. IN this scenario we would expect the millenium to start about now (if one had to make a prediciton it would be 2030AD):

---

Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old? this isn't adding up. Also the start of Christ millennial reign is not connected with the length or timing of the creative days, for the simple reason that Matthew 24:36-42 states that only God knows the set time, not even Jesus knew. Now if the set time was related to the timing of the creative days, wouldn't all the spirit creatures know the set time? Therefor your line of reasoning is clearly in error.

quote:

---

You completely ignore that Heb 4 talks of 'another' rest day. That 'day' is described in detail in Rev 20-22. It is the millenium. The endtimes 'day of the Lord' as descibed throughout the NT encompasses events which occur at both the beginning and end of the millenium of Rev. The 'great and terrible' day of the Lord is a 1000 year day.

---

You are misunderstanding the meaning and wording of Hebrews 4:8 which reads "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" I happen to have the NIV study Bible, if you look at the foot note it even states "Israel's going into Canaan under Joshua was a partial and temporary entering of God's rest. That, however was not the end of entering, as shown in the continuing invitation of Ps 95:7-8." Paul's point was that the promised land was not the paradise the meek are to inherit, it only fore shadowed the future entry of Christ's followers into the New World. So there are not two divine rest days being referred to in Hebrews 4:8, there is only one divine rest day mentioned in the Bible. Rev 20-22 refers to Christ's reign and does not refer to the seventh creative day.So to sum up. you have no answers for the following.1. heat problems with YEC accelerated flood geology theories.2. how large igneous intrusions such as the Busheld complex had time to cool slowly.3. how the water that under YEC formed the comets was ejected from the earth.4. how the ejected comets achieved distant circular orbits.5. unable to account for the large size and number of comets discovered.6. unable to explain layered fossil forests7. unable to explain why there has not been found a cold subducted pacific plate reaching as deep into the earth as the mid Atlantic ridge is from the Americas east coast.8. unable to explain how YEC supposed sudden burst of heat from a surge in the earth's internal radiation didn't leave the earth too radioactive to live on and why large quantifies of secondary short lived radioactive daughter products such an event would have produced are not found.9. unable to explain the Mid Atlantic ridge record of magnetic reversals recorded on the ocean floor and how the vast changes that would have to occur in the magnetic flows inside the earth could have occurred so quickly.10. unable to explain the pattern seen in the depth of sediments in connection with the Mid Atlantic ridge, none on the active parts of the ridge and gradually increases the farther you get away from the ridge across the ocean floor and the rate of increase agrees with a slow spreading of the ridge with a slow sediment rate.11. unable to explain ice age animals, where they came from, when they lived and why they died.12. unable to explain many, many other points too numerous to list all at once.This is why I don't accept YEC, the more you look into it, the more problems there are, if it was the right answer, it would solve problems rather than create them. It is extremely obvious that YEC is in complete error. From the above you can see that there are many things that YEC can not answer, and there is nothing that clearly supports YEC. All of the evidence YECs have used to try to support YEC is found after a brief examination to be based on some very wishful thinking.--WmScott[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-24-2003][Fixed links broken by code bug. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 01-24-2003]

Dear Percy;First, thanks for fixing the bug.I knew you would object to my using the word 'identification' in regard to your most recent hum, er . . . "suggestion?" When writing that post I couldn't think of a watered down enough word or phrase that you would be happy with. I used the word 'identification' solely for clarity so you would know what I was referring to. In terms of 'identification' you can think of the usage in light of the little boy riding in the car who looks out the window and sees a cow and said "Doggy!" All 'identifications' are relative as you have repeatedly pointed out by constantly questioning mine. Now if I point out the window and say "unicorn" you can shake your head, point to me and make the 'crazy' circular motions next to your head, and you haven't crossed the line. But if you open your picture book and hold up a picture of a horse, you just made an identification. Once you went from just saying no it isn't, to saying maybe it is this, you crossed the line. I know, I had to bait you for quite a while to get you to do it, and once it is done it is done. Granted you have only basically said 'doggy' which is certainly not an official certified scientific identification published by the leading scientist in the field who is willing to stake his reputation on his carefully researched results. I know you didn't make an official identification, you just offered other possibilities which is offering an alterative unofficial identification which I, to up hold my position have to refute. If you were not offering any possible alterative identifications, then I could ignore the pictures you posted at no risk to my position. So were you challenging my identification, or do you just like to post pretty pictures?

quote:

---

I expect that there are fresh water variants of many marine species.

---

Yes of course, that is why species identification is important. Asterolampra Marylandica is a centric diatom of which there are very few freshwater descendants, in fact the older books on diatoms say there are none. I have been unable to find any freshwater diatoms that have any resemblance to Asterolampra Marylandica , from your lack of posting on this I gather you haven't ether or wouldn't have resorted to posting pictures of algae.

quote:

---

diatomaceous earth and diatomite, which both contain abundant diatoms are extensively mined and used for numerous purposes, which can result in them being spread over the surface of the Earth.

---

I have been waiting for the better part of a year for somebody to bring this up. A web site had the following information on diatomite mines and mining in the USA.

quote:

---

There are currently 12 diatomite producing facilities in the United States
All of the active diatomite mines is the U.S. are freshwater lake deposits except the marine deposit at Lompoc, California.

​

Most diatomite products are used in filtering applications. With a large particle size distribution, the smallest of the particles occupy space between larger particles. This reduces the rates of flow through the filter. The purpose of calcining is to reduce the particle size distribution. The use of the term calcined is ingrained in the diatomite industry and markets so it is used frequently, but diatomite is actually sinterized not calcined ().
Sintering reduces the size distribution by melting the smallest particles together. To produce calcined diatomite the natural product is heated to between 900 C. and 1100 C. The high temperatures burn off organic contaminants, and shrink and harden the individual particles. Some of the diatom frustules are sintered into small clusters.
seventy percent of all production was used in filtering applications

---

CAS – Central Authentication ServiceNow, most mines of diatoms are freshwater diatoms which don't concern us since we are talking about marine diatoms. In the USA, only the mine at Lompoc, California mines marine diatoms and they are mining the Monterey Formation which has marine sediments from the upper Miocene to the lower Pliocene. The lower Pliocene age gives the diatoms of the Monterey formation a minimum age of probably at least 3.5 millions years. The types of diatoms found in the oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably different from what was present at the end of the ice age. The following web site noted.

quote:

---

Paleontologists make use of the fact that diatom species are short-lived: every five million years or so, any particular species will disappear or yield to a new species.

---

Page not found - MBARIBased on that rate of replacement, most of the diatoms found in the Monterey Formation are extinct and are not a problem. Additionally as pointed out in the first site quoted, 70% of this material is used in filtration which means it was sintered or fused, such treatment is visible under the microscope and also fuses the diatoms into clumps too large for wind transport. Also as I have already pointed out, Asterolampra Marylandica is too large for wind transport any way. So contamination from diatomaceous earth and diatomite is at most a very minor problem which can be avoided by site selection. Since I am looking for traces of a marine transgression at the end of the last ice, I of course am looking for undisturbed ice age landscapes, which will not have been contaminated by spread of diatoms from diatomaceous earth. Diatomite is not a problem since it is former diatomaceous earth that has been fused together like sand stone due to heat and pressure.

quote:

---

I suggest you ask Edge or Joe Meert about possible geologists to contact about diatom identifications,

---

OK, Edge & Joe Meert, If you read this you may consider yourselves officially asked for help.

quote:

---

Science today is far too broad and complex an endeavor for the next major revolution to come from a scientific hermit in Wisconsin. It is a group activity which progresses through consensus. From a scientific standpoint, your pictures are only of diatoms when a lot of other qualified people agree with you that they're diatoms. And your diatoms arrived there by flood only when a lot of other people agree with you that they arrived by flood. Keep the need for consensus in mind. It's not enough that you think so, a lot of other people must think so, too.

---

Very sad outlook Percy, I hope most researchers adamantly object to your assessment of scientific progress. Reminds me of something I saw, there was a book published called '100 against Enstien' when someone told Enstein about it he is said to quiped "one would be enough if they were right" Once I complete my research and am hopefully able to publish my results, then we will see whether my findings are accepted or not. So far, my ideas and findings have received little attention and I have yet to complete my work. I am working towards achieving scientific consensus on my work, but even if I am never even published, what matters in the end is whether I was right or not, not how many believed.--WmScott

Dear Tranquilty Base;

quote:

---

This does not clear it up. Austin could publish creaitonist comments that read positively for our sceanrio. It is a matter of interpretation and ones bias can sway the 'criteria' used by either side. This stuff is fitted to belief by both sides. Of course I nevertheless believe the YEC view is a better explanation of these phenomena.

---

You have never explained the YEC explaination in detail for how the trees end up lined up with the supposed former soil surfaces and why the tops are missing. These points are explained by mainstream science, so how can the YEC explaination be better if it has no explaination for these details? At the time that 'Austin' took his quotes, it wasn't known if the trees had been moved or not, later findings proved that they had not. The newer evidence elimates the YEC interpitation as a possiblity. I also posted two other sites where simlar evidence is found, I have seen pictures in books on trees found like this, or do you think the pictures were faked? I suggest you find and read the references if you think the evidence has been misinterpreted, if such is the case, it should be easy to prove.Since you are willing to relegate the 'comets from the flood' theory to the fringe, we can drop it. I do recommend you distance yourself from it, it was the craziest thing you had ever posted. However in the creationist world it seems to be widely accepted as fact. The book that defines the hydroplate theory, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" (7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown states "the "fountains of the great deep" and the power of high-pressure water exploding into the vacuum of space launched comets throughout the solar system as the flood began." Brown's book seems to be the source of much of what you believe, but since you have wisely backed away from his comet origin theory, could you outline your position or post a link to a web site or book that publishes the theory that you are following. Brown's book for example also states that there was salty water 10 miles down in the earth's crust that was the source of the flood waters while you believe the water came from the oceans and was heat blasted into the air and maybe space? There are active creationist web sites still supporting everything from canopies to the earth is only 6,000 years old, most of which conflicts with your position, so I could really use some information on what you believe or don't.You missed the point on this the first time so I will repost it, now watch the math this time. 'Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old?" My point is that 1+6=7 not 6. If you accept the biblical age of man of 6,000 years, under your time theory it would still be about a 1,000 years before your second rest day which you say will start in just a few decades. In your calculations you have a math error of nearly a thousand years.My point on Matthew 24:36-42 was that it precludes the start of the millennium being connected with the timing of the creative days since it states that only God knows the time, and this also means that there is no support for assuming a start of a second 'rest day' at that time since then the time would be known to other spirit creatures aside from God. Hence Rev 20-22 also refers to Christ's reign and does not refer to a rest day.

quote:

---

I would actually see the coming into the promised land as a 'shadow' picture (in the sense of Hebrews) of the ultimate rest day. . . . That's where I don't follow your logic. How do you not see 'another' day as 'another day'!? The use of 'another day' points to another sabbatical rest day. How can you possibly have the 'another day' be the same as a previous day?

---

Correct on the 'shadow', that was the point of the NIV footnote on Hebrews 4:8, that is the first rest day referred to, and if it had been complete there would not be a reference to another. You need to read the surrounding verses so you can see this verse in context so you can comprehend it. There are two different days referred to here in this verse, one is the figurative rest day of the Israelites entering the promised land, the second is the rest day of God which started after the creation of man and still continues on. If you read the preceding verses, or for that matter the whole book of Hebrews, Paul is stressing the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, how Christianity is the fulfilment of the prophetic fore types acted out by Judaism. In this verse Paul is showing how the rest day the Christians enter into is far superior to the Jewish rest day which was only a prophetic example of the Christian reality. On the biases of christ's sacrifice, what the Jews could only do symbolically, the Christians could actually do. The first rest day referred to here is the Jewish figurative one, the second is the real rest day of God of which there is only one mentioned. There is no support in this verse for God having two rest days, since the first day refereed to here is the figurative one, take that away and it leaves only one, 2-1=1. There is only one divine rest day.

quote:

---

Wm, I suggest you are clearly 'marking your own exam paper' here as well as expecting everything to neatly pop out in one go.

---

Actually the second or more go since we have already discussed these earlier issues more than once already, I also see you still didn't try to answer any of them. But that is OK, I know that you can't, I was just pointing that out, sort of adding up the score so far. My point is that your YEC is in conflict with the findings of science, and if it was just a matter of misinterpretation, checking the evidence itself would reveal the discrepancy and answer all the questions. I have also pursued the supposed scriptural support of YEC since while it is conceivable that there could be some twisting of the findings of science, we should see very clear support for YEC in the Bible if it was true. But so far I fail to see any support for YEC, and there are a number of passages that directly conflict with YEC interpretations of scripture. Without the support of the Bible, YEC is just another on of those crazy ideas you here about like all those conspiracy theories like how the Apollo moon missions were all supposedly faked. The people who get duped by those conspiracy theories have answers it seems for everything, no matter what evidence you may present it never convinces them, to them it just shows that they are right that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought or shows how far the government will go to cover it up. The identifying mark of people who believe in these things, is they do so in the face of mountains of contrary evidence that they ignore as part of their belief. Without the support of evidence that mainstream science can not explain or clear cut scriptural support, YEC is in that category.--WmScott

Dear Tranquility Base;

quote:

---

So what do these pictures show?

---

The following pictures show fossil trees that were found rooted in the palaeosol that they grew in which is of course impossible if YEC where true.The Fossil lycopod forest or club moss trees forest. This was the picture that I was thinking of in particular. Notice how the site has been dug down to the palaeosol layer that the trees grew in. I know you will disagree about that, but look at how the root surface or ground layer position of each tree lines up. Also notice how the tops of the trees are gone and how the trees are plained off at a common level. How could these stumps supposedly settle in muddy YEC flood waters and end up so neatly positioned like this? Now here is the same site over a hundred years later now housed in a museum. If you doubt this evidence you could always go see it for yourself. Here in a german museum is a fossil tree that has been removed from the palaeosol so you can see the intact roots, notice here too the top of the tree is missing which is only understandable under mainstream geology since YEC is unable to explain why this pattern is seen in fossil trees.[Click on above image for larger view. --Admin]

quote:

---

Site on The Fossil Forest, west of Lulworth Cove, Dorset, southern England, is a classic geological locality with the remains and moulds of late Jurassic or early Cretaceous coniferous trees rooted in a palaeosol (ancient soil),

---

quote:

---

1.Cluster of standing fossilized trunks of coniferous trees of the Protopinaceae family, in the Petrified Forest park at Pali Alonia. The considerable frequency of fossilized tree trunks preserved standing and with their root system fully developed confirms that these were petrified in situ and not removed to the place they are found today.

---

I would imagine that right now you are trying to figure out how to accommodate in YEC the occurrence of fossil trees still rooted in the ground that they grew in. I have below a picture of an other tree, a living tree known as the bristlecone pine tree that you will have to consider as well.

quote:

---

The bristlecone pine only lives in scattered, arid mountain regions of six western states of America, but the oldest are found in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest in the White Mountains of California. There the pines exist in an exposed, windswept, harsh environment, free of

​

competition from other plants and the ravages of insects and disease. The oldest bristlecones usually grow at elevations of 10,000 to 11,000 feet.
The oldest known tree is "Methuselah", which is 4,789 years old.

---

Blue Planet Biomes - Bristlecone PineNow here we have a tree that is still alive and growing that is older than the Biblical date for the flood, at the time of the flood this tree would have been about 400 years old. Clearly in the life span of this tree, a YEC type flood in which the entire surface of the earth is changed, has not occurred. Then it should also be remembered the tree ring record based on these trees with over laps in rings patterns of over a hundred years between trees, extends unbroken into the past for over 10,000 years. Now we both agree that there are many possible problems with absolute dating systems used in science, but dendrochronology is based on little more than counting the number of rings and pattern matching between trees with overlap in their time spans. I have no problem with tree ring dating, the potential problems are small and the science is simple. Under my theory of a late ice age flood, the trees survived, since the flood occurred in late fall after the ground had frozen. Under the YEC theories, you have an impossible problem. The evidence is simple and straight forward and it clearly and definitively shows that a YEC type flood has not occurred in the last 10,000 years. Pushing the YEC flood farther in the past to escape the conflict with the tree ring record will not help much, for as scientists work to extend the records ever farther into the past, that would result in pushing the YEC flood farther and farther back into the depths of time. Challenging the science behind the tree ring record is an exercise in absurdity that a number of YECs have engaged in, but basically arguing that advanced degreed researchers don't know how to count is indeed absurd. The multiple ring per year theory has also been an YEC favorite, and is equally absurd since it requires at the very least, large scale occurrence of extreme weather patterns repeated for large scales of time that no one living in those times mentioned or where effected by or shows up in any other way. YEC love to say that mainstream science misinterprets the evidence, but if YEC fails to heed the clear implications of the tree ring record, who is misinterpreting the evidence?

quote:

---

Now I understand. You are quite right about that contradiction. I was speaking from my equivocal standpoint. If the 1000 year creation days is correct then man is between 7000 and 8000 years old. Quite right.

​

Mortality is nevertheless 6000 years old. The redemptive week (post creation day 7) has been going for approximately 6000 years

---

By Mortality I assume you mean the first sin, so what you are saying is that Adam existed for nearly a thousand years in the garden of eden before the expulsion. The problem is that will not work ether, remember the chronology listed in the Bible, it gives Adam's age at the time he died, 930. (Genesis 5:4) Which means of course that Adam could not have been in the garden for so very long, in fact the Bible states his age at the birth of his first child as 130 years, and that birth occurred after the expulsion. So the maximum amount of time you could squeeze in here is only 130 years which is far shy of the 1000 you need to make your chronology work.Previously I had posted- "My point on Matthew 24:36-42 was that it precludes the start of the millennium being connected with the timing of the creative days since it states that only God knows the time, and this also means that there is no support for assuming a start of a second 'rest day' at that time since then the time would be known to other spirit creatures aside from God." To which you replied.

quote:

---

What about the Scripture which tells us to not be caught unaware? Or Chrsit tellign us to watch the seasons? The only way to reconcile Matt 24 with these Scriptures is that we can know the season but not the 'day or hour'. So there is no problem with knowing the season just with knowing the 'day or hour'.

---

The term 'season' here refers to a period of time as does the term 'generation', both refer to a length of time lasting a number of years possibly even decades as were seen in the events leading up the destruction of Jerusalem which was the first or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24. Christ followers were to recognize this period of years or season of the generation by the foretold signs. Thinking that we can pin point a specific year based on chronology would be to miss the point of 'no one will know'. All the signs tell us is that we are getting closer, but they are not a numbered count down. Whether it be in the first watch. or the second, third or even the forth, we are to stay awake and keep on the watch. Now if it was possible to know the year, why are we told to stay awake? Couldn't you just set your spiritual alarm clock and sleep till then? Clearly thinking we know the time, even just the year, is self deception. It is not possible to use chronology to gain information we are not meant to have, if it were possible to so easily get around God's ability to keep a secret, it would reflect badly on our creator.We also have to keep in mind Christ's statement that only his father knew the time, none of the other angels or even Christ himself knew. If the start of the millennium was related to the timing of the days of creation, all the angels would know the exact time, since they don't there is clearly an error in your theory. The fact that only Jehovah knew the time clearly means the chosen time was decided upon by God and doesn't relate to any chronology or other length of time periods or else it would not be a secret.

quote:

---

Maybe you need to paste an annotated version of Heb 4 here?

---

Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Your theory is that each creative day is 1000 years long and that the seventh day was to and ended long ago and was followed by another creative week and that we are approaching another seventh day or actually the fourteenth day according to you. The fact that there is but one literal rest day and that it is still on going is shown by Hebrews 4:3-4 "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."" NIV These verses clearly states that God has rested since the creation and equated this rest with the seventh day, clearly showing that both are on going and have not ended. The wording is very clear, the seventh day is on going. This means that the seventh day is already over 6000 years long and shows that the earlier creative days could have each covered long spans of time as well.As I explained earlier, Hebrews 4:8 talks about the "temporary, earthly rest gained under Joshua pointed to a rest that is spiritual and eternal." (NIV footnote on verse one) That is the other rest day, which since it is not complete, another rest day is referred to even after the Israelites entered the promised land. Paul is contrasting the figurative with the literal, he is not saying that there are two literal rest days of God. As shown by the wording in verses 3-4, there is only one rest day of God and it is on going so there is no need for another.As a fellow Christian and believer in a literal flood, I respect your beliefs, but I disagree with some of them. I hope I have been able to show to you how YEC is in conflict with evidence found in the physical world and the spiritual world as well. This is why YEC is a minority viewpoint among Christians. The Bible is a deep book, sometimes you have to dig to get the right understanding, I would be happy to help you find it.--Wm Scott Anderson[This message has been edited by Admin, 02-05-2003]

Dear Percipient;

quote:

---

You have enough for a paper on marine diatoms in Wisconsin. . . . Your original goal was to submit a paper last year, but nothing happened. I'm trying to encourage you to stop arguing and get on with it.

---

I know you are trying to help me and I do appreciate it very much and I need the outside viewpoint. I just don't agree with all of your opinions. I do share your opinion that my diatom evidence is weak which is why I haven't tried publishing a Scientific paper on it yet. I need more evidence before I can submit a paper, I know that, so I have work to do. Unfortunately this research is just a hobby and I have limited time and funds that I can devote to it, this slows and limits what I can do. But I intend to keep at it, and hopefully I will be able to gather enough evidence to produce a very solid paper someday.I liked your characterization, that is about how I thought I would appear at the moment.Yes I thought you would be amused by my scriptural exchange with TB. As you should remember, TB places the Bible above the physical evidence, since you never cited scripture you never had a chance of changing his mind. You can only convince a person if you use evidence that they accept.--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Bill Birkeland;

quote:

---

This is very faulty reasoning because the North American
mines discussed in this web page are not the only source
of diatomite. . . . 2,000 metric tons of diatomite were
imported from other countries. In addition, finished fertilizers
and pesticides imported from other countries would also
contain foreign diatomite in them. Thus, a person also needs
to know the composition of foreign diatomite deposits in
order to rule out a human source for your diatoms.

---

I wasn't ignoring the importation of diatom containing material, I restricted my posting to just considering the United States to keep the post a reasonable size. In general for the whole planet's production of material containing diatoms "Miocene and Pliocene age deposits that are being mined throughout the world today" which means these potential sources of contamination can be excluded by looking for more recent marine diatom species.

quote:

---

I say "alleged" the quality of pictures so far shown are, in
my opinion as a geologist who has worked with microfossils,
vastly inadequate for any identification of it. In fact, for really
accurate identification of many diatoms, a person often
needs a electron microscope because of the limited
resolution of light microscopes.

---

Happen to have one I can borrow? But seriously I am always looking to improve the quality of my results, I am less than happy with the picture quality I have been getting. Perhaps you can offer a few suggestions? Maybe some references to some good articles or books that detail the steps involved. I have also been having only limited success in tracking down the laboratory procedures for processing diatom samples. Sources for affordable supplies would be helpful as well.

quote:

---

The comments about " The types of diatoms found in the
oceans 3.5 million years ago was considerably
different from what was present at the end of the
ice age." is not completely true. There are many
species and genera of diatoms that persist from
the Miocene until modern times.

​

For example Asterolampra Marylandica occurs in Miocene
marine sediments described at:

---

Yes you are right, Asterolampra Marylandica dates back into the Miocene and even earlier. However in general, many of the marine diatoms in the oceans today are more recent and can be used to exclude contamination from older sources. I believe the Asterolampra Marylandica I have found is more recent due to the size of the species being to large for Wind lofting which restricts the possibility of contamination to very local sources. Any contamination needs transportation to the site to be a problem. Industrial and agricultural use of diatoms and materials containing diatoms will not have affected the site in question. But as I wish to extent my sampling to other sites that may have been exposed, it does present problems. I will ether have to be extremely selective in site selection or I will need to use only recently occurring marine diatoms. I could use a reference guide that lists the first appearance of each modern marine diatom, any recommendations?I am very surprised that you didn't bring up the biggest possible source of contamination of marine diatoms. Don't the roads ever get icy where you live?--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Tranquility Base;

quote:

---

I have seen it before. It is very strong evidence against the YEC flood. What geo-col era does fossil grove come from?

---

Jurassic I believe, but what I have trouble understanding is the fact that you have seen this strong evidence against YEC and yet you have never bother to investigate it at all. If I was in your shoes I would want to know everything I could about this, if my theories were wrong I sure would want to find out. Makes one wonder how many other cases of "very strong evidence against the YEC flood" you know of, but have never bother to check them out. How can you promote a theory to others if you haven't even checked to see if it is true? How do you expect to convince me with gapping holes like this in YEC that you have no reasonable answer for? Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will regard this evidence as a conclusive disproof of YEC.

quote:

---

You seem to be unaware that multiple rings can form in some years?

---

Actually I knew it would be the first thing out of your mouth. Multiple ring formation is rare and some trees are not very prone to it at all, which is why I referred to the Bristlecone Pine tree dendrochronology rather than any of the other tree ring records. The only way a tree species like the Pinus arisata is going to form more than one ring is if there is more than one growing season in the year. In other words you need a 'winter' in the middle of summer to create the formation of a dormant or winter type ring in the middle of the summer ring. These trees live under very difficult conditions, adding a frequent 'extra winter season' long enough to create a winter ring, will kill the trees off in probably just a few years. So claiming many extra rings is impossible, in fact if the climate in the summer is cold, the summer ring can fail to form in some trees resulting in a 'missing ring'. This means of course that if any error is possible, under counting is more likely than over counting. To check, a tree ring record from another area is used to cross check the two records to see if they agree. A book I have stated on the Bristlecone record. "an independent check on the last 5,405 years of the chronology was possible using a separately developed bristlecone chronology for the Campito Mountains region of California (LaMarche and Harlan, 1973 ). This work showed that the two chronologies agreed exactly over the whole of the last five millennia. It is therefore safe to assume that the whole of the chronology is correct." Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology by M.G.L. Baillie. So you have two records here that agree exactly, and then there are the other tree ring records from around the world. Clearly claiming the formation of extra rings would then require extreme cold seasons in the middle of summer earth wide for hundreds or thousands of years to account for all the supposed extra rings, yet in the Bible no one mentions this and we find no physical evidence of any sort to support such a wild theory. So unless you can up with some better answers, I will regard the tree ring record as another conclusive disproof of YEC.On Bible chronology you stated;

quote:

---

Cleary in this view Adam's age is timed from his expulsion fom the garden.

---

The chronology is given in Genesis chapter 5, and starts with the words "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them man. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son . . . " NIV. As you can see from the context Adam's age was counted from his creation, not from the expulsion. This still leaves you with a 1000 year error in your chronology.

quote:

---

My saying we are 'in the last generation' is consistent with 'not knowing the day or hour'.

---

Correct, we only know the season, but if you were correct about the start of the millennium being related to the timing of the creative days, then all the spirit creatures who were in heaven at the creation would know the time which is biblically impossible. Therefore there can be no relation between the timing of the millennium and the creative periods.

quote:

---

That's a good point. The NIV wording leaves open the possibility that it is the events, not the timing, that are uncertain.

---

What Matthew 24:36 states is "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." verse 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." The events were described earlier in the chapter, the point as shown by verse 42 was that they did not know when it would happen, they were not told to stay awake because you do not know what will happen. The context is clear, it was the timing that was unknown.

quote:

---

In plain English " God would not have spoken of ANOTHER DAY. THERE REMAINS THEN A SABBATH-REST FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD". The rest for the people of God is clearly the 'another day'! It is not the continuation of the creative rest day because it is 'another day'.

---

You seem to have a major mental block that is preventing you from understanding this point, which is to be expected since if you did, your whole YEC belief system would come crashing down. Hebrews 4:8 does indeed refer to two rest days as we both agree. We also both agree that the second one is God's rest day. What we differ on is what the first referred to in verse 8 is, you say it is the seventh day, I say it was the figurative rest day when the Jews entered the promised land. In the NIV footnote it states it was "Israel's going into Canna under Joshua", and verse 8 even states "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day." The first day spoken of here, according to both the footnote and the context of the verse, was the entry into the promised land. The second or 'another' mentioned here is none other than the seventh day. If verse 8 was really talking about two separate divine rest days as you claim, why does it start with talking about the rest Joshua had given them?--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear PercyYou had stated;

quote:

---

Biblical authors wrote very poetically and spiritually, they did not write very precisely. Practically every Biblical passage is open to more than one valid interpretation.

---

That is a common misconception, while poetic and some verses are indeed open to more than one possible meaning, nearly all of the Bible is clearly enough written that it supports only one interpretation. If it was as ambiguous as you seem to think, I would be unable to debate TB on interpretation.--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear PercyThe problem with biblical interpretation is not due to the way the Bible is written, the problem is with the way it is read. Now there are many things in the Bible such as symbolic prophecies that take much study and cross referencing to understand, but much is perfectly plain and clear, yet many people still have trouble understanding. For example at Matthew 23:1-12 Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, pride, wearing identifying clothing and wanting to be called by titles such as 'Rabbi'. Then starting in verse 8 he tells his disciples they are not to be like that, and in verse 9 he commands "do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." he continues on and condemns the use of titles among his followers and states that those who would take the lead should do so in a humble manner setting an example. The wording is as simple and clear as is the meaning. Yet most Christian religions have titled leaders who wear identifying clothing and act like, well like Pharisees. Some religions even use the title Father even though Christ personally specifically forbid its use as such. Just think of all those televangelists, they make even the Pharisees look good. So why do people have trouble understanding the Bible? It is because they aren't really willing to hear what it is telling them. They consciously or unconsciously reinterpret it in such a way that they think it said what they want it to say. They aren't really listening. It doesn't matter how simple and clear the message is if people don't want to understand it. They are blinded by their own religious doctrinal prejudices, if they were able to see past such, they would quickly see that much of what they have been taught is actually in conflict with the Word of God. Since Christians have a great emotional stake in having the Bible back up their belief system, they suddenly have trouble understanding the meaning of any part of the Bible that threatens their belief structure. That is why TB is having trouble understanding the verses I post that contradict YEC, it is not because the wording is vague or complicated. The Bible is an open book to those with open minds.--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Percy;Yes there is always the possibility of being blinded by one's own prejudices, it is a good point for everyone to bear in mind. (Hint, hint) From your viewpoint I imagine that TB and I do indeed look like two peas in a pod, but I gather from your point of view, all who believe look the same. There is a word for your viewpoint, the word is prejudiced. So we come full circle, that is the way it is when you start pointing fingers. You have your own blind spot as well that has prevented you from seeing some things. But we digress from the subject, remember the flood topic? Now in regard to the flood, I haven't been basing my arguments here on proving a flood by citing scriptures. I have been using physical evidence to support the occurrence of the biblical flood. I respect those who accept the biblical flood on pure faith alone, but I am not one of them, I like to look behind the curtain.--Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Percy;Actually I find it is your attitude that is prejudiced, not your use of specific wording. You are prejudiced in thinking that all who believe are the same, that TB and I are like two peas in a pod, that is clearly a prejudicial stereotyping as is your belief that all creationists are guilty of "accepting only your own personal viewpoint". While such a statement may be true of many creationists it is not true for all and is clearly a prejudiced statement. In the days of slavery it was true that many black Americans were uneducated, but it was certainly untrue and prejudicial to say that all blacks were uneducated. To lump any group of people and state that additional features are universal that were not part of the initial classification, is prejudicial stereotyping. It is like saying all Scottish men are cheap, which is not necessarily true, while saying that all cheap Scottish men are cheap, is true. You are guilty of making assumptions based on incorrect conclusions. Your belief that there is no means of deciding correct or incorrect theories on the flood or creation among those who believe, is also wrong. The scientific standard of evidence and proof is still in effect even if many choose to ignore it, there are those who follow it and you are lumping them unfairly with the others. Even in the case of TB and myself, if you have been following the discussion you know I have shown that YEC is in conflict with scripture and the evidence, while TB who has read my book, has not even challenged me. TB's second departure from this thread speaks for itself. If it was the free for all that you seem to think it is, TB would still be posting here on an equal footing, but that is not the case. TB may not accept my arguments, but he has been unable to answer them. Now when TB and a geologist have an argument about the age of the earth in another thread, and TB is unable to answer and slips away, I don't jump in and say that the geologist and TB are like two peas in a pod and each is only accepting their own opinion. I can see the difference between the two, if you can't see the difference between TB and me it is because you are blinded by your own prejudice. To you the differences between TB and me don't matter since you have already pre judged us, the very meaning of the word prejudiced.My one real problem with your prejudice is that it precludes you from acting as a fair and impartial judge, since you have already made up your mind. No amount of evidence is going to be able to break down your wall since it is inside your mind and can only be breached from the inside. Repeatedly you have stated that my evidence failed to convince you, which is of course impossible to do since you are convinced you already know the answers. If you are really going to fairly evaluate what may seem like a nutty idea to you, you need to be willing to say what if this is true, what would the implications be? If you can't mentally allow for this possibility, you don't really have an open mind and will reject many things without giving them a fair chance. Granted most things from the fringe are untrue, but perhaps not all are, to assume so would be prejudicial. Why even have long discussions if you have ready decided the out come? In your own way, your mind is just as closed as some of the YECs you argue with. A discussion between two closed minds is an illusion, a true discussion is a free exchange of ideas, which can only occur between two open minds each willing to consider the viewpoint of the other.So are there any open minds out there that would like to discuss the Biblical flood?--Wm Scott Anderson