Pre-Flood Waters?

Mike,You do have an irritating ability to miss the point, don't you? Evolution of function & complexity has been observed. Special creation hasn't. Period.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mountians Haven't always Been Mountains are created by shifts.
Now the reason Creationiest can use it as a defence is Becuase they Believe that the Earth is very young. so since it is Mountains where there During the Flood. but the way The scientific Community sees it as if the Mountains wheren't always there. if you need me to explain more i will. However I am an Evolutioniest Now but I was Brought up a catholic. so I can see where the beliefs are comming from. however I don't see (now) How you can put faith a book that has nothing to back it up. it could have been a easily Writtien as a Fairy tale was or myths. to me the Existence of a god compliacates things Even more . you say "noting can't be come something" if you Believe in God don't you break this rule? I mean a God can't pop out of nowhere either now can it?I have Noticed when a Conversation on here gets to this Creationiest seem to stop posting. PLEASE post I want to hear your real reasons[This message has been edited by DC85, 07-03-2003]

My understanding of the Pre-flood was a very different place from what we are seeing today. The earth was much smoother without the mountains. There must have been some sort of pressurzation to the planets atmosphere. As evidenced by numerous large insects that have been fossilized,( 6ft centipedes, dragon flies with 50 inch wing spans, ect.) The only way they could get so big is in a hyperbolic atmosphere. There is no other explaination because their size is directly related to how much air can be absorbed through the sphericals in their skin. It rained for 40 days and nights- that could have been an Ice shell around the earth (held up by the meisner(magnetic)effect) breaking up. That would explain alot as to how we have skeletons of people 10-12' tall, legends of people living to be 900+ years old, and the large insects, for various reasons. This is also proved out by air bubbles found in amber. These bubbles have roughly twice the oxygen and CO2 than is found today. That makes these things very possible- including 300' tall trees found 10,000' down in the Gulf of Mexico by people drilling for oil.
The fossilized seashells found on the top 3000' of Mt Everest have one very interesting feature. The clams were alive when they were buried, as evidenced that they are CLOSED. I have spent alot of time in and around water- if a clam is dead- it's open. 3000 ft worth of clams buried alive in sediments then they were lifted up. Bent rock layers found all around the earth also concur with this POV of sediment layers being laid down, then being dramtically heaved shortly there after. Not to mention sedimentay layers of rock that run across the continent. However that does not explain how the water kept going up for 120 days. That would have to be the fountains of the deep (i.e. aquifiers) breaking up. If the earth was smoother there is certainly enough water to cover it. Roughly 3000' deep at it's shallowest point. Since there are trillions of fossilized fish found in chalk layers, and diatoms die off and make chalk at @ 1 inch every 1000 years- something very radical had to happen for fish and whales to be totally encompassed and fossilized before they decayed or were eated by bottom feeders. These deposits of chalk are found at or near breeches like the San Andres Fault. They even found a teradactyl with a 50' wing span there, along with a baleen whale. So what happened? I think the fountains of the deep blasted though at these points with heated water and dropped everything in range, (Crank up the heat in your fish tank and see how fast they die. It doesn't take a lot). Water deep underground could be quite hot and certainly pressurized, just like the oil deposits we find today. Once those broke open there would certainly be enough to cover the earth. Well now we have water over the top of the caverns that used to hold water. What is going to happen with all that weight? The caverns would reasonably collapse forming the oceans to the continental shelf. By the way, if it just came to the continental shelf you could walk ANYWHERE in the world.Since the Oceans are gaining ground every year, I think it is reasonable to think that they were shallower at one time. Getting deeper as the ice at the poles is melting off. At the same time- while the surface plates dropped on the ocean side, the mountains would be lifted on the continent side. Ever wonder why mountain ranges follow the coast they're nearest to?
Well you see it is quite possible for this to happen. And it had to happen quickly as evidenced by the fossil, and geological record. I think the biggest hinderence to the truth is not opening up to possibilities beyong what is currently the status quo. The misinterpretation of the forming of the Grand Canyon is probably the greatest Hoax presented and currently pushed, inspite of the facts drawn out during and after the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Besides I'm still looking for someone to explain how the river flowed uphill thousands of feet to cut through the uplift that forms the Grand Canyon? ANYBODY????
Anyway, it is quite possible for a worldwide flood to have happened- you just have to think and let the facts bring you to your conclusions- not the other way around. If you were in R&D for 20+ years as I have been- you would understand how critical that process is to finding the truth as it is, not how we would like it to be. I'm sure 100 years from now ( if we're still here) there will be people arguing that light has always moved at it's present rate- even though the folks at Harvard have managed to not only slow it down, but indeed stop it all together, Then release it. They will argue, if for nothing else, to protect the notion that the universe is Billion and Billions,( read that as Once upon a time), of years old. Not because it is the absolute truth- but because it meet's their need of not having be open to options they may not like to have to deal with. Trust me- Not having a Creator to deal with would not be a problem- but then Adolph would have been right- Cull the weak and undesirable for the good of the whole. Yet that isn't acceptable to most- why is that?
Either way- something very radical happened here @ 4400 years ago. The population of the earth, the age of the deserts, the oldest living trees all point to that time period as well as the various sites, like Stonehedge, around the world which show the earth got bumped about the same time. The sites, when graphed, show a wobble in the rotation of earth. The same frequency is seen in a spinning top that has been bumped. Something happened then. The flood seems to me, to be the best explaination for the total picture.
Besides if we Evolved, how come there are @ 720 worldwide flood legends all telling basically the same story? Oh wait, I know, there was a prehistoric monkey convention where they all got together on Pangea. Thats where it came from. At the same time they all got buckets shovels,(or their ansestoral counterparts, I'm sure we will find it in the fossil record sooner or later. If not, well nothing has ever stopped us from making it up where we needed to, RIGHT?) and added the 40% of land mass to Africa it's now magically gained since breaking up. And since they were there, they added Central America too since that is missing in Pangea. At least they had the common sense to make it large enough that we could still see their work after millions of years of the oceans rising. Those were some smart monkey's.

Once again, Mike, we have to state:Creationist view of abiogenesis:
Simple chemicals -> Modern bacteriaScientific view of abiogenesis:
Simple chemicals -> Polymers -> Self replicating polymers -> Hypercycles -> Probionts -> Ancient prokaryotes -> Modern bacteriaI wish creationists would stop presenting abiogenesis in their contest, namely the context of creation. They view abiogenesis as being a miraculous spontaneous creation event; scientists don't argue for anything remotely approaching that. They also picture the immediate creation event to be a modern bacteria, which is again, nothing close to reality. Without competition, even the simplest self replicating polymer, even if it is incredibly limited in its potential "food" sources, will take over. Look at the SunY self replicator to see how small some self replicators that we've already found can get.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hi Rei,
Sorry but I can't even remember typing this it was so long ago. Since then I have heard quite a bit about Abiogenesis and am aware that evolution does not necessarily claim abiogenesis.Also reading my own posts I realise that I sounded a bit stupid.lol as it was a bit off topic,can we bury this one way down under.

Wow, what a long post of "stuff". Where to begin.

quote:

---

There must have been some sort of pressurization to the planet's atmosphere.

---

Yes, living things survive really well inside a pressure cooker.
Big creatures need high pressure atmospheres about as much as they need a bullet to the head. Increase the pressure, things don't get bigger - they die.

quote:

---

the sphericals in their skin

---

You mean the spiracles? Spiracles of large insects open up into tracheal tubes, and can be forcibly ventillated through muscular contractions (a good example is grasshoppers) - in short, they're external lungs. Why postulate some preposterous solution to large insects that would flat-out kill them like Raid, when they already get around the surface area issue?

quote:

---

Ice shell around the earth

---

The problems from this one are so preposterous that there's an entire thread devoted to it. James - do a quick calculation of the potential energy of several miles of water falling to Earth. Even if it just fell 2 miles, that releases the energy of hoover dam on every 300 by 300 meter area. It would vaporize itself long before it even got close to Earth, and turn the Earth into a *literal* pressure cooker with the heat transfer. Not to mention that its collapse would displace Earth's entire atmosphere.

quote:

---

meisner(magnetic)effect

---

Do you know what the meisner effect is? It's about superconductors. Are you claiming that water is a superconductor? What about Earth? Do you realize how little force it applies?

quote:

---

skeletons of people 10-12' tall

---

Not a single one exists. [quote]legends of people living to be 900+ years old[quote] Yes, in the *Bible*, the same book you're trying to defend as a literalist work here. If I was trying to prove that Moby Dick was word-for-word accurate and quoted Moby Dick, what would you think of me?

quote:

---

air bubbles found in amber

---

Trees don't just get taller the more CO2 you give them. Try it out. They're different species, and they're structurally completely different - just like dinosaur fossils are completely structurally different from anything alive today.

quote:

---

300' tall trees found 10,000' down in the Gulf of Mexico by people drilling for oil

---

There's petrified palmwood down there in small segments, but what 300 foot trees are you referring to?

quote:

---

Clams were alive when they were buried, as evidenced that they are CLOSED

---

Clams live in burrows. If they die in their burrows, the shells become preserved in their closed position. If they are dragged out and killed by predators, they die in their open position.

quote:

---

then they were lifted up. Bent rock layers found all around the earth also concur with this POV

---

Only if that POV is tectonic activity. Which, might I add, is *still* bending the Himilayas upward. If it were to bend it rapidly, not only would the rock completely shatter, the amount of heat it gave off would mostly liquify it. There would be no fossils.

quote:

---

That would have to be the fountains of the deep (i.e., aquiers) breaking up

---

You do realize that if a mile worth of water came from underneath the Earth and "overturned", that would involve something to the effect of what happened with Krakatoa's collapse happening over the entire planet?

quote:

---

something very radical had to happen for the fish and whales to be totally encompassed and fossilized before they decayed

---

Something like, oh, lets say, an underwater mudslide? They engulf things on the modern Earth all of the time...

quote:

---

these deposits of chalk are found at or near breeches like the San Andres Fault

---

.San Andreas. And chalk is found almost everywhere on the planet; the San Andreas is nothing special in terms of quantity.

quote:

---

They even found a teradactl with a 50' wing span there, along with a baleen whale

---

Evidence? BTW, it's pterodactyl.

quote:

---

I think the fountains of the deep blasted through at these points

---

And they didn't collapse into the gaping cavity beneath, something that you yourself describe?

quote:

---

the caverns would reasonably collapse forming the oceans to the continental shelf

---

And, apart from yet another catastrophic potential energy input, you have to face that we're talking about accumulated sediment, not a rubble pile. Anywhere. If your excuse is that the rubble "got broken up", why didn't the fossils?

quote:

---

while the surface plates dropped on the ocean side, the mountains would be lifted on the continent side

---

I assume you're not meaning "sides of the earth", because if so you're forgetting about the Indian Ocean.

quote:

---

Ever wonder why mountain ranges follow the coast they're nearest to?

---

Oh, it couldn't have anything to do with plate tectonics, which are an easily observable phenominon that raises mountains, causes earthquakes, and visibly slides sections of rock past one another leaving roads and fences split where they cross the fault, now could it?

quote:

---

Grand Canyon.... Mt. St. Helens

---

We just covered this in another thread. Was that you who authored it? [quote]Anyway, it is quite possible for a worldwide flood to have happened- you just have to think and let the facts bring you to your conclusions[quote].Ok. So the flood deposited tens of thousands of varves. It sorted all animals into perfect layers of successive types of animals, and put radioactive minerals around them that would just coincidentally match up with the layers. Potential energy magically was made irrelevant. Hundreds of thousands of sandstone layers were caused by the minerals being deposited rapidly altering, and depositing these nice, clean, altered layers. Upthrusts happened at the same time - again, no heat problem, of course. In between deposited layers are layers of basalt - deposited during the flood underwater, I'm sure. Also laid down in sedimentary rock during the flood are various tracks of land animals. Salt is left amazingly sparsely in places, and amazingly commonly in others - sometimes layers right on top of each other. Water soluable minerals from the precambrian were left untouched. I could go on for days...

quote:

---

Harvard have managed to not only slow it down, but indeed stop it all together

---

Cite the study you refer to.You do realize that if the speed of light (C) changes, relative time changes as well? For example, if C were made twice as fast, the Earth would rotate twice as fact, it would orbit the sun twice as fast, etc - because spatial distances are relative to it. Thus, to an observer, it's still 4.5 billion years.

quote:

---

a wobble in the rotation of the Earth

---

What on earth are you talking about?

quote:

---

how come there are 720 worldwide flood legends telling the same story

---

Oh, there are lots of flood myths. Unfortunately for you, they're all completely different.Flood Stories from Around the World

quote:

---

magically gained since breaking up

---

There is absolutely nothing at all special about land gaining and losing area. The pacific ocean is a subduction zone - the pacific plate is losing land. The mid atlantic ridge is creating land. When there's an upthrust, land heads out of water. When two plates pull apart, land tends to get submerged.If you want more detail toward any point, please: Address It To The Proper Forum. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

{drivel snipped}Practising the ol' Gish Gallop¹, hum? Every one of your claims is based on one or more serious errors and misunderstandings. They have long been refuted; they're tired, and I'm just not going to type out the pages of material required to briefly point out your many errors. If you are interested in learning, look at Talk Origins. If you are interested in debating, pick one of your claims and let's discuss it. If you're just interested in spewing errors, please go away.¹Spitting out literally dozens and dozens of claims, no more than a sentence or two. They are always oversimplified, often just plain false, but by the time you've refuted the first one, 20 more have been thrown out like a machine gun. Popularized by Duane Gish; the current master is Kent Hovind.

quote:

---

My understanding of the Pre-flood was a very different place from what we are seeing today. The earth was much smoother without the mountains. There must have been some sort of pressurzation to the planets atmosphere. As evidenced by numerous large insects that have been fossilized,( 6ft centipedes, dragon flies with 50 inch wing spans, ect.) The only way they could get so big is in a hyperbolic atmosphere. There is no other explaination because their size is directly related to how much air can be absorbed through the sphericals in their skin. It rained for 40 days and nights- that could have been an Ice shell around the earth (held up by the meisner(magnetic)effect) breaking up. That would explain alot as to how we have skeletons of people 10-12' tall, legends of people living to be 900+ years old, and the large insects, for various reasons. This is also proved out by air bubbles found in amber. These bubbles have roughly twice the oxygen and CO2 than is found today.

---

--OK, my feelings of urgency and anxiety came over me by the time I finished reading this much. I think I already know, but may I ask, what is the source of your information, James?

Would that be a hyperbolic function, a hyperbolic logarithm, or a hyperbolic spiral? Maybe it is just plain hyperbole.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Even after reading through Woodmorappe and Oard's failed attempt at a scientific paper, which would embarrass any sophomore or above student in geology, it never ceases to amaze me how much trouble some Young Earth creationists have in getting their facts and observations correct. If Young Earth creationists want to impress conventional Earth scientists with their ideas, they first need to least to double check the basic observations and facts that they present in their arguments to make sure they are correct and not the vivid imagination of the creationist sources they are citing. Otherwise, after the first couple of paragraphs, stuffed with all sorts of obvious misstatements of facts and errors, most conventional scientists will stop simply stop reading them not wanting to waste their time on someone who hasn't done their homework.The first example is from Message 18,
when James J of Milwaukee, wrote"This is also proved out by air bubbles found
in amber. These bubbles have roughly twice the
oxygen and CO2 than is found today."[NOTE: "The Earth's atmosphere contains about 77% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% water vapor, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide, and traces of other gases." from
Alternate View Column AV-27 ]This is a garbled version of research by Gary Landis and associates concerning analyses they did on samples of Cretaceous amber. They didn't argue that both carbon dioxide and oxygen were both double present levels. They argued that the oxygen level during the Cretaceous was about 35 percent versus the modern oxygen level of 21 percent. That is about 67 percent more oxygen in the Cretaceous, not double than present. What they did argue that the amount of oxygen in the air during the Miocene was 14 percent, of which the Cretaceous figure is 114 more than in the Miocene, not present.. The Cretaceous air was different than modern air, if the amber measurements can be trusted, but certainly not the differences stated by Mr. James. Whether amber actually contains an accurate, unaltered sample of Cretaceous air is still a matter of considerable debate. In fact, other research would argue that the oxygen content during the Cretaceous was not much different than it is now.Th carbon dioxide content is argued to have been 6 to 10 times present. Although it has tremendous greenhouse and ecological consequences, changing the carbon dioxide and the oxygen content isn't going lengthen lifespans or any other of the miraculous results ascribed to it by Mr. James.Go read "Interview with Robert E. Sloan by Joe Cain Session 1 at:Page not found | Science and Technology Studies - UCL — University College Londonand "Air bubbles, amber, and dinosaurs" at:Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey[NOTE: The use of the word "hyperbolic" in the original post sounds he is trying to say "hyperbaric" a technobabble term used by Carl Baugh. ]In case of the "skeletons of people 10-12' tall" are concerned, a person might want to read "Men Over Ten Feet Tall " at:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.htmlThen in message 18, it was stated:"That makes these things very possible- including
300' tall trees found 10,000' down in the Gulf of
Mexico by people drilling for oil."Having done geology in the Gulf of Mexico, the sounds like an obvious urban legend. I say that because, it is physically impossible from a drill hole to know the height of a tree that was dilled into at a depth of 10,000 feet. At that depth, quite likely, a person wouldn't even know that they have drilled into a tree. The 300-foot tree sounds like the result of somebody's vivid imagination and a good example of why people need to double-check what they either read or are told."The fossilized seashells found on the top 3000' of
Mt Everest have one very interesting feature. The
clams were alive when they were buried, as
evidenced that they are CLOSED. I have spent alot
of time in and around water- if a clam is dead-
it's open."In case of Mt. Everest, the clams and others shells are found solid rock that has been uplifted and deformed by tectonic forces. It has nothing to do with a high water mark of some sort of flood. This was discussed also in "Buz's Seashell Claim" at:"http://EvC Forum: Buz's seashell claim -->EvC Forum: Buz's seashell claimThere are many way conventional ways a layer of rock containing closed clams shells can form besides a Noachian Flood. Any storm or flood can, under the right circumstances dump a layer of mud over the bottom of a lake, bay, or sea and bury live clams. Closed clams, by themselves, mean nothing as far as proving the occurrence of the Noachian Flood.There is abundant evidence of uplift and deformation of marine sedimentary rocks, which can explain the presence of marine fossils at the top of Mt. Everest. In fact, using GPS and other advanced and accurate surveying technology, geologists had demonstrated that the Himalayas and other mountain ranges are actively uplifting (rising) even as they measure and remeasure parts of the Himalayan Mountains. Some references that discuss this in great detail are:1. Deformation Kinematics of Tibeatan Plateau
Determine from GPS Observations by Jinwei Ren at:
http://center.shao.ac.cn/APSG/pdfs/Renjinwei.pdf.2. Jouanne, F., J. L. Mugnier, M. R. Pandey, J. F.
Gamond, P. Le Fort, L. Serrurier, C. Vigny, and J. P.
Avouac (1999) Oblique convergence in the Himalayas of
western Nepal deduced from preliminary results of GPS
measurements. Geophysical Research Letters. vol. 26 ,
no. 13 , p. 1933. - Abstract no. 1999GL900416 at
http://www.agu.org/.../abs/gl/1999GL900416/1999GL900416.html3. Caijun Xu, Jingnan Liu, Chenghua Song, Weiping Jiang, and Chuang Sh, 2000, GPS measurements of present-day uplift in the Southern Tibet
Earth Planets Space. vol. 52, pp. 735-739.
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5210/52100735.pdfSome random references about the direct measurement of the tectonic activity that is causing the uplift of the Himalayan Mountains.Bilham et al.. (1997) GPS measurements of present-day
convergence across the Nepal Himalayas: Nature, v. 386,
pp. 61-64.Searle, M. P., and P. J. Treloar, (1993) Himalayan
tectonics - an introduction. In Himalayan Tectonics,
P. J. Treloar and M. P. Searle, pp.1-7. Geological
Society of london special Publication no. 74,
Geological society of London, London, England.Shen, et al (2000) Contemporary crustal deformation in
east Asia constrained by Global Positioning System
measurements, Journal of Geophysical Research. vol. 105,
pp. 5721-5734.There are numerous web pages that describe in great detail how the Himalayan Mountians were created by the collision of India and Eurasia. Some of them are:1. The Himalayas: Two continents collide
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/himalaya.html2. Himalayan tectonics
404: Earth and Environment3. Geology of the Himalayan Mountains
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wittke/Tibet/Himalaya.html4. Colisiones continentales y Orogenesis
http://tlacaelel.igeofcu.unam.mx/...D/colision/colision.html5. PLATE T-48 HIMALAYAN FRONT AND TIBETAN PLATEAU
GES DISCThen it was stated:"3000 ft worth of clams buried alive in
sediments then they were lifted up."Again someone has a very vivid imagination. Mt. Everest isn't composed of 3,000 feet of clams that have been buried alive. There is likely a very thin layer or layers of such clams, but certainly not 3,000 feet of them. This misstatement sounds like a classic case of "Gishing" by the source of this information.Also, it was stated:"Bent rock layers found all around the
earth also concur with this POV of
sediment layers being laid down, then
being dramtically heaved shortly there
after/"Yes, there are deformed strata to found all over the world. If a person looks just at simply relative age, as determined by cros-cutting relationships, it is quite apparent that they were neither derformed at the same time nor, in many case, "bent" soon after deposition. This statement is readily refuted by a careful examination of the published literature.In addition, it was stated:"These deposits of chalk are found at
or near breeches like the San Andres Fault.
They even found a teradactyl with a 50'
wing span there, along with a baleen whale."More badly mangled geology. :-) There isn't any chalk associated with the San Andres fault zone. Here, it sounds like chalk has been confused with diatomite, which is white and earthy, there is lots of in California, and contains fossil whales. However, the diatomite doesn't contain any pterodactyls and pterodactyls aren't found in the same rock layers as fossil whales. [ I am rather baffled about what a "breech" is. The primarly "breeches" that I am familiar with are an article of equestrian clothing as seen at:Access deniedOf course ther are fishing breeches and so forth. :-) :-) :-) ]"Besides if we Evolved, how come there are
@ 720 worldwide flood legends all telling
basically the same story?"The fact of the matter, the flood legends don't all tell the same story as Young Earth creationists falsely insist on claiming. If a person would take the time to look at the stories, instead mindlessly repeating such Young Earth creationist falsehoods, they would find that the details of the individual flood legends differ greatly in the types of flood, number of survivors, types of liquids involved, and many other details. The fact of the matter is that they don't tell "basically the same story." This is discussed in detailed in "Flood Stories from Around the World" by Mark Isaak at:http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm(NOTE: Also a person might have fun browsing " An Index to Creationist Claims" at:http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/index.htmlThere. a person will find " CH552. Seashells on mountains are evidence of a flood." at:http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH552.html )There is also the golden oldie of misinformation:"Not to mention sedimentay layers of rock
that run across the continent."The truth of the matter is there are very few, if any, single layer that actually runs across an entire continent. The layers that have the widest extent are layers that accumulate in large marine basins where uniform conditions of sediment accumulation can occur as seen in modern oceans and seas.There are also layers such as the St Petersburg Sandstone that appear to be a single layer of rock. However, if some Young Earth creationists would ever take the time get out of their armchairs and into the field, they would quickly find that it is not a "single layer". Instead it is composed of multiple overlapping, onlapping, offlapping, or cut and filled layers of sediments, which only have the superficial appearance of being a single layer when a person doesn't make the effort to look at them in any detail."Besides I'm still looking for someone to
explain how the river flowed uphill thousands
of feet to cut through the uplift that forms
the Grand Canyon? ANYBODY????"The problem is that the river didn't need to flow uphill to create the Grand Canyon. A perfectly good explanation of how the Grand Canyon was formed without a river having to flow uphill is given by:Harris, David V., 1976. The geologic story of the
National Parks and Monuments. Colorado State
University Foundation Press.andChronic, Halka, 1983. Roadside Geology of
Arizona. Missoula: Mountain Press Publishing.A person might also want to look at:http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581.htmlandElders, Wilfred A., 1998, Bibliolatry in the
Grand Canyon. Reports of the National
Center for Science Education, vo. 18,
no.4, pp. 8-15.http://www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp?curiss=8In reference to the statement:"The misinterpretation of the forming of the
Grand Canyon is probably the greatest Hoax
presented and currently pushed, inspite of
the facts drawn out during and after the
Mt. St. Helens eruption."In reference to this statement a person should read "CH581.1. Rapid erosion on Mt. St. Helens shows Grand Canyon could form suddenly" at:http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581_1.htmlIn case of the Mt. St. Helens argument, it is the Young Earth creationists, who have exaggerated and misrepresented the facts. Simply, it is impossible to use the effects of erosion on loose volcanic material to model the effects of erosion of lithified sedimentary rocks. The similarities between Mt.St Helens and the Grand Canyon are so superficial, the comparison between the two is nothing more an example of really bad sceintific thinking and logic.For some more about the Grand Canyon, a person can read:Account SuspendedIt would certainly help Young earth creationists, if they would simply take the time to get their facts straight before they start arguing their position. Nothing destroys the credibility of a person's arguments when he or she uses a bunch misinformation, falsehoods, and errors support his or her position.Yours,Bill Birkeland.[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 09-25-2003]

Hey, I'm new to the site, so may not be up to speed on all of the protocol with regard to posting. Please see the post I am replying to in order to put the following in perspective. I apologize in advance for the long post, but there was a lot presented.First, I've found that most evolutionary arguments involve a very large number of assumptions...the biggest of which is that the earth is the same today as it was 5000 years ago. For example, the atmosphere. The original post states that "There must have been some sort of pressurization to the planet's atmosphere."which gets the following response:" Yes, living things survive really well inside a pressure cooker.
Big creatures need high pressure atmospheres about as much as they need a bullet to the head. Increase the pressure, things don't get bigger - they die.*To this I pose the following question: Is it not well documented that hyperbolic chambers providing increased pressure and oxygen actually improve healing time? How about experiments including compressed carbon dioxide and plants? How do you explain dinosaurs that had nostrils too small to supply enough oxygen for their mass??? Seems to me this theory is more plausible than dinosaurs who grow to massive sizes without adequate oxygen (based obviously on the assumption that the atmosphere had the same pressure and oxygen levels at a time when the dinosaurs were alive).I admit it, I know jack about bugs...so I'll skip that one.There was mention of an ice shield/canopy, I'm not sure why this is so ridiculous... This shield would have reduced ultraviolet light, x-rays, and a number of other things that contribute to aging. This would indeed then support a long life, larger plants, dinosaurs with small nostrils, etc. I would be interested in hearing how it is so impossible for this shield to have existed or why it could not have been dispersed in such a fashion as to not cause this massive heat transfer...besides, every time I've been in the rain, the temp hasn't gone up from the heat transfer...meisner(magnetic)effect
Indeed a reference in superconductors, floating trains, etc. Also a hypothesis of Dr. Kent Hoving with regard to one possibility (combined with atmospheric pressure) for how the ice shield may have been held up.skeletons of people 10-12' tall--call the Smithsonian, do a little research, they do exist...is this so ridiculous with people exceeding 8' tall even today?Original text: "Trees don't just get taller the more CO2 you give them. Try it out. They're different species, and they're structurally completely different - just like dinosaur fossils are completely structurally different from anything alive today."*Following this reasoning an experiment referenced by Dr. Hovind showing a tomato plant with hundreds of large tomatos could not have happened...yet it did when the scientist involved fed the plant compressed CO2.I hadn't heard about 300' trees in the gulf, but I have heard of palm trees under the ice at the poles. Seems to me a greenhouse type of effect such as is proposed at the beginning of this post might explain that.Original post reply: "Clams live in burrows. If they die in their burrows, the shells become preserved in their closed position. If they are dragged out and killed by predators, they die in their open position."*First, clams do not die in the open position, they die then open. The original post responded to mentions clams on mountains in the closed position, it should be noted that piles of clams have been found the the closed position...now how many clams do fit in a burrow?Original reply to bending layers: "Only if that POV is tectonic activity. Which, might I add, is *still* bending the Himilayas upward. If it were to bend it rapidly, not only would the rock completely shatter, the amount of heat it gave off would mostly liquify it. There would be no fossils."*Rock doesn't bend, it breaks. Thus tectonic movement under sediment had to have occurred to form "bends" in the layers. Also note that fossils only form when buried within a short period of time (to avoid exposure to the elements, predators etc.) Thus massive changes in sediment brought about by a flood of a global scale explains both the fossils and the bends in the layers...not to mention converging coal layers...*Haven't heard of Krakatoa's collapse, what is it?*Underwater mudslide does not explain diatomatios earth fossilizing a whale in the upright position as found in CA. Hot water escaping through the ocean floor would however explain the death of the diatoms which then "snowed" to the ocean floor fossilizing the whale from nose up to tail.Original retort: "Evidence? BTW, it's pterodactyl."
*Feel free to point out my spelling errors as well...always looking to improve myself.*Please note that if the ocean floor was originally the height of the continnental shelf, then the water trapped beneath it was released, what was land would then sink and become the ocean floor. And yes there would be massive energy exchanges resulting in water covering the earth, new sediment forming, new mountains forming, erosion occurring rapidly as the water rushed off after the flood...*Again with the mountains and plate tectonics...rock doesn't bend... Broken layers are from tectonics involving rock, bent layers are from tectonics involving sediment. Logic.*Who ever said a flood would leave a universal, equally distributed number of perfect layers? Just look at the divergent layers of coal... I would like to know who these formed from the point of view that the flood did not exist...would seem to me that if the layer splits at some point with rock between...this really throws a wrench in the theory that the layers form slowly over time...Original response: "You do realize that if the speed of light (C) changes, relative time changes as well? For example, if C were made twice as fast, the Earth would rotate twice as fact, it would orbit the sun twice as fast, etc - because spatial distances are relative to it. Thus, to an observer, it's still 4.5 billion years."*What? Changing the speed of light changes the number of revolutions the earth makes....???With regard to the wobble of the earth, I believe the original post was referring the the fact that the earth is tilted on it's axis, which has resulted in the many religious sites of sun worshipers now being incorrect in their alignment with the stars. This lends to the theory that there was a catastrophic event in the history of the planet resulting in a shift in the earth's rotation (ie. wobble) and tilt. This catastrophic event obviously occurred during recent history as proven by the sun worship sites. Could it be that this event was an impact to the earth causing the surface to break up and release water...maybe the earth wobbled when it travelled through the tail of a commet and picked up a huge amount of ice particles which then were magnetically drawn to the poles throwing the earth into a wobble. If this did happen, might the massive influx of super cold ice at the poles explain wooly mammoths frozen standing up with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs...might it explain the glaciers that suddenly carved pathes down into North America?Original response: "Oh, there are lots of flood myths. Unfortunately for you, they're all completely different."*Except for the fact that most of them talk about a world-wide flood. Coincidence that that many cultures have retained some sort of history about the flood? What happens when you play the telephone game????*With regard to gaining and losing land, who cares? The world is constantly changing. The point is that pangea was a joke and is a joke. You have to shrink one continent to make it fit, then you have to rotate others in different directions and pretend that certain areas did not exist, but do now. This is about the only place in evolutionary theory/history of the earth theory where it is not automatically assumed that the earth has changed over time rather than remaining the same...Original text: "If you want more detail toward any point, please: Address It To The Proper Forum."*Sorry folks for the long post on my first one, but there was just too much info to let it slide without comment. I also apologize for any duplication as it is late and I am not going to proof read this monster.

Hey Meanbadger,First I notice you have been listening to Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh(sp). They are well known quacks, both of them have fake degrees and they spout nothing but lies.I regret to inform you that most of what you have posted has been discussed on these forums a hundred times. Fact is, non of it is true, and non of it coincides whith the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Why not look thrugh some of the longer Great Floof and Geology threads. You can see most of these points adressed.Best regardsEDIT: BTW, when you want to quote someone just use {qs} at the beginning and {/qs} at the end of the quote. Except you replace the "{""}" with "[""]" get it?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-26-2004]

Hey Yaro, thanks for the response.Granted, I'm not an expert in any field, save insurance, but many interesting points were raised, to which I have as of yet to hear an adequate response. Please note that my thoughts on the matter are not limited to one "quack" or another, but have been formed reading many web sites on both sides. Regardless of a person's educational background or their history (real or otherwise), I am more interested in the information discussed. As you suggest, I may review some more of the longer posts, but I haven't seen anything new on the one's I've already read...If you have some insite or would like to point me at the posts you mention, I'll be glad to give them a read.

Sure... I'll go ahead and break down your post and point you tword relevant links. Then if you have any further questions you could post them here for discussion.Cool?Check back here in a few minutes.

First off, why is this such a far fetched assumption when there is nothing in the universe to indicate that things HAVENT worked allong the same rules?And if indeed such an atmosphere existed 5000 years ago, wouldn't it have left evidence of it's presence? Better yet, wouldn't it have been subject to the same phisical laws?From that we follow with: If the atmosphere was full of water varpor as the YECs propose, that is enugh vapor to inundate the whole world, the atmosphere would create an incredible amount of pressure, not to mention an incredible amount of heat. That is what the above response means.So much watter in the atmosphere would have cooked the surface of the earth under it's intense presure.A relevant threads can be found here:http://EvC Forum: Pre-flood physics?
http://EvC Forum: The Flood- one explanation
http://EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood.a very good one:http://EvC Forum: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&AYou can turn up many more by simply using the forum search feture and typing in 'vapor canopy' What do nostrils have to do with anything? Blue whale nostrils are bearly a few inches wide. Elephant nostrils are about as big as my thumb. Besides, nostrils don't fosilize and from what I can see, most dinosaurs have rather large nasal cavities.I havent heard this silly argument before. So no threads for you here This is in support of that hyperbaric chanber hypothesis?http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs explained biblicallyAgain, see the threads above. This is an idea perpetuated by Carl Bough, if you would like some interesting info on him, and his crack science, check these sites out:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.htmlYou should really explore each link in this page about him:Account Suspended The question is, where is this ice canopy, and where is the evidence for it? The amount of water that it would take to flood the world is astronomical. That amount of watter in the atmosphere at any given time, would increase the pressure to an unheard of degree, and cook everything in the planet!Read the above links on the great flood for more insight on this. Also, you may want to look into these:CH310: Vapor canopy's effect on climate
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html
CH401: Vapor canopy Kend Hovind is a fraud.Account Suspended This was also delt with on these forums. Forgot were it was tho. Anyone remember? Messenja posted those horned skulls etc.?That's the first batch. I will do more latter. Feel free to answer these if you can. I have some other things I need to do.bbl.Have fun.