Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 7 of 234 (22283)
11-11-2002 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by wmscott
11-11-2002 4:57 PM

I am reading your book. However, can you please for everyones sake, write a pararagraph or two for semi-layman that explains your thesis simply? Not just a hint of what's to come if they read your book - how about a summary of what your theory is, how it works, what the key evidence is and what it means?
Here's an example for 'standard' flood geology:
Many creationist flood geologists believe that much of the fossil-bearing rocks were deposted during the flood year by a catastrophic event that caused the inundaiton of the continents due to sea-level rises and catastrophic rain. Mainstream geologists agree that the rocks tell the story of inundations of the land by sea. Most of the sedimentary trocks on land are seawater deposits. Creationists argue that it occurred recently via catastrophic tectonic processes. The same processes of sea-floor spreading and continental drift that mainstream science attributes the major sea-level increases to are implicated by flood geologists.
Of course mainstream science doesn't agree that the entire surface of the planet was ever covered. However, the highlands would have been significantly lower during the earlier stages of the continental movements which built many of the mountain chains. The highlands would also be the last, and most briefly covered, and would only have received a light sprinkling of sediment. Highlands also preferntially erode more quickly. There are many reasons to not expect to find evidence for a complete covering of the earth.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 11-11-2002 4:57 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 154 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2003 11:46 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 8 of 234 (22287)
11-11-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
11-10-2002 8:40 PM

I had a quick look at it. Of course every flood geologist knows about this! I'm just a simple genomics researcher and I've thought about it.
I would presume that the modern day rivers were named after the Eden ones!! Ever heard of New York? I've got a suspicion it wasn't the first 'York'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 11-10-2002 8:40 PM doctrbill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-11-2002 7:58 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 10 of 234 (22303)
11-11-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
11-11-2002 7:58 PM

^ I guess I dispute that the Bible accurately describes that terrain (firt time for everything hey?). I'll have a more careful read and get abck to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-11-2002 7:58 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-13-2002 11:03 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 15 of 234 (22552)
11-13-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by wmscott
11-13-2002 5:55 PM

Thanks wm.
I'll continue reading your book and comment when I've finished.
So far I don't find your evidence sufficently compelling to abandon a young earth. Catastrophic tectonics, flood surges, helium retention and a creationist cosmology IMO is the answer to your problems with YEC. In short, some bizaree things but completely compatible with 2 Pet 3 and its prophetic description of uniformitarianism. I hope that some of your iceage/comet stuff will help YE-creationists nevertheless.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 11-13-2002 5:55 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wmscott, posted 11-27-2002 5:14 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 32 of 234 (25004)
11-29-2002 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by wmscott
11-27-2002 5:14 PM

The uniformitarian dception in 2 Pet 3 is 'everything goes on as it has since the beginning'. This is identical to 'the present is the key to the past'.
You have so much confidence in these mainstream analyses of rocks. Have you studied paleocurrents at all? Half the geo-col is turbidite deposits. Most is marine on land.
Why can't you see that mainstream geology could just be a calibration exercise to expectation? 'This looks most similar to a river delta so that's what it was.' What eveidence is there that it wasn't catastrophic draining of a flood surge erpoding soft sediments? NONE. These things have never been seriously considered since the 19th century.
What of the huge freshwater beds of the Grand Canyon? Ferns strewn over thousands of square miles. No evidence of a river delta geometry. It was Genesis level catastrophic flooding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by wmscott, posted 11-27-2002 5:14 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 11-29-2002 10:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 40 by wmscott, posted 12-02-2002 5:11 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 36 of 234 (25017)
11-30-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by edge
11-29-2002 10:55 PM

If your statements are made in good faith then why do you deny that most beds could have been rapidly genernated?
Let's not go and pick a problematic one for us - every theory has problematic aspects. Let's stick to the bread and butter of the geo-column. Let's pick most of the Grand Canyon strata.
What is stopping most of those layers being generated by erosion of recently laid soft sdiment?
[PS On the river delta point: how do you explain thousands of square miles of layered fresh-water deposits contiaining land plants? The only place thiscould happen is in a huge river delta but there is no sign of deltaic geometry in the freshwater layers of the Grand Canyon.]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by edge, posted 11-29-2002 10:55 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 11-30-2002 8:10 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 38 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 9:30 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 44 of 234 (26358)
12-11-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by wmscott
12-02-2002 5:11 PM

Dear wmscott
wmscott writes:
OK, verse 4 in 2 Peter chapter 3. That verse is referring to the world of mankind not the literal earth.
The Scriptures in a number of places talk about the burning up of the Earth. It does not disappear, but its surface is destroyed, as it was with the flood.
Actually I considered YEC flood theories early on in my search for evidence of the biblical flood and a simple examination of the evidence rapidly eliminated them as possibilities.
It is clear to me that almost every pronouncement of mainstream geology is no more than an empircial 'best fit'. There was no analogy of the flood to fit to so they fit the column to modern processes. But they ignored the Scriptures to do it. Simply becasue they had no model for it. Berthaults experiments even show that layering under currents has not been properly understood until now. There is nothing stopping every pronouncement of mainstream geology being quite wrong. It is a digital switch. Almost all of it is either flood or not.
For even if you were right that most of GC was created by paleocurrents, what about the rest of the GC? Failure to account for all of it is still failure.
I think you place too much faith in mainstream pronouncements of eolian deposits and great ages. In our scenario perhaps a lot of metamorpheses and salt beds were formed by accelrated decay heating.
Now on the Grand Canyon, a wonderful place I hope to visit someday, I do have the book "Grand Canyon Geology" edited by Beus and Morales. A rather long and technical book, but an examination of the evidence reveals no possibility for rapid creation of the canyon or of the material that it is cut in.
As A8ustin and Berthault are showing the GC tells the story of vast hydrodynamic sorting of facies rather than eons of time.
I have seen that others have already posted on the lava dams in the canyon and the lengthy time periods involved, and others have already pointed out that some of the layers are wind blown deposits not water deposited.
See my comment above.
. . . why are the ferns only in one layer? Plus I suspect that the ferns are rooted, they were buried by sediments where they grew. Yet the YEC is probably claiming that the layers below the ferns were created by the flood too. See as soon as you start thinking about this stuff in detail the impossible problems start popping up.
The ferns are distibuted in the hundreds of foot thick Hermite formation and are not rooted! You imagine that you can spo easily work out the dynamics of the flood. That is ridiculous wm!
A simple point to remember about the GC is that we only see part of it. If a vast deposit is laid down, only the parts that are not eroded away are preserved.
We completely agree. Almost everything mainstream geology pronounces fits even better in our scenario. Have you seen my thread on Lyell's catch cries of uifromitariansim? The basic catch cries are perfectly expected by a catstrophic flood.
But that doesn't mean they were created all at once in the flood.
No, but they could have been. Since the Bible implies it then the two together tell me that that is how it was.
For example the silt and sand deposits, the only way they could have been created is for uplifted areas such as mountains to have the rocks that they are made up of, to be weathered away and washed down rivers towards the sea. For the source of the silt and sand was of course rock, the rock had to be broken down and the material had to be moved by rivers.
We unashamedly propose the entire formaiton and break up of Pangea dueing the flood period. Our scenario was the mother of all catstrophes. It was the lietral rebirth of the continents. If you stop constraining yourself to uniformitarian thinking the flood makes a lot of sense. And Baumgardner has shown that catstrophic plate movement is possible and the trigger was probably accelerated decay.
You can attempt to appease mainstream science but we are finding what really happened.
In many deposits there are alternating layers of sand and silt, which would require alliterating periods of fast and slow water. Some of these deposits have hundreds or even thousands of such layers, and the problem is if the water slowed for the silt to drop out, the sand falls out first.
You clearly haven't familiarised yourself with Berthault's and Julien's expereiments.
Yet such a massive deposit is not found. We do find turbidity current deposits, which do resemble the expected YEC flood deposit, but we only find them where we expect to find them and they frequently are found on top of a number of layers YEC claim were created by the floor or we find them beneath flood claimed layers. If the turbidity currents were flood created, the layers would be included in the turbidity layer and would not be found as a separate deposit.
What are you talking about? The bread and butter of the geo-col is vast sub-continental formaitons. The geo-col is 50% tubidity deposits and paleocurrents can be measurd throughout the geo-col.
Look at it this way, God used natural means in doing many things, why not the creation of the GC as well?
I believe he did use natural means. The events of the flood were tectonically instigated as mentioned above.
Have you ever watched a baby being born? I noticed the separate skull plates of my sons head come together and subduct under each other and then slide back out to their sperate places as the baby emerged from 'the narrow gate'. The cross of Christ is a constraining door. The flood was the rebirth of the continents. It represents the baptism and sanctificaiton (= separation) that we all have to go through. At the same time we Scriptually get separation on the basis of tongue (Babel). It all comes together and gives the why and wherefores for the first time. Christ was baptised and separated to his call via 40 days in the wilderness.
The geology of this planet, the birth from water, the rebirth in the flood, the separation of the continents and the fire to come is not an accident - it is a picture of the process of our life and that of our forerunner.
None of this is an accident. It is not the realm of mainstream science. The geology of this planet is God's realm. It is his footstool.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by wmscott, posted 12-02-2002 5:11 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by wmscott, posted 12-16-2002 4:55 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 50 of 234 (26871)
12-16-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by wmscott
12-16-2002 4:55 PM

The fiery destruction of the 'earth' mentioned in Peter is not a literal fire or burning of the earth's surface since there are to be righteous survivers, in that the meek are to inherit the earth.
The precedents of Scripture tell us that this will fire will be both literal and spiritual. OI agree wth you that the 'earth' is a picture of mankind, but it really got baptised didn't it? That was literal, even for you.
Now we know this verse doesn't refer to a literal destruction of the earth and the universe, since other scriptures speak of the earth standing forever.
Agreed, but that isn't an arguement against a physical fire! I have no idea how God will protect his church but have you not heard of Shadrach, Meshack and Abednigo?
In part one of this thread I addressed the issue of rapid plate movement and pointed out a number of impossible problems with the theory. You never responded, I had assumed it was because you had no answers, but perhaps you were just too busy.
I'll have a look but I a the first to admit that it is early days for accelerated decay and rapid drift/spreading. I am convinced these are the answer but I am even more convinced that, nevertheless, the flood ocurred 1500 years after creation so it must have occurred quickly.
Yes I have, even as one who believes in the flood, I was amazed at the pounding you took. Quite frankly I thought that your opposition reduced your arguments down to the consistency of cottage cheese.
With that sort of statement I think you'll have to back it up with excerpts.
If you read the thread carefully my demonstration that the 3 catch-cries are explained by the flood emerged unscathed. It was almost not even commented on becasue it is so clearly true. The flood really does generate the same features as Lyellian gradualism.
I think they would have been better off playing with a Wham-O "Magic Window" toy. Did you notice the part on water deposited laminations, that the layers became less distinct with increasing water depth? That alone pretty much shoots down any using of their results for flood theory layering.
No one is claiming their work proves anything! It is very suggestive hat layering could have occurred rapidly under currents. And the videotape is much, much better than the website. You can get it for peanuts.
How can currents sort fossilized coral reefs? Rooted petrified tree sumps?
Have you really considered Austin's work at all? Do you still beleive the mainstream Yellowstone petrified forest fairytale? Those reefs could simply be compactifid transported shell material.
Clearly even if YEC were true, a much more complicated sorting system was at work than flood currents to produce the organised patterns seen in the GC.
It would be a convolution of ecology, mobility and sorting events.
bioturbation caused by plant roots
That's a good point, but perhaps these layers were just well mixed during depositon. You ignore much of the data which is simply documents unrooted ferns strewn throughout huge areas. Every bed will have evidecne for both points of view. The total data of the Hermite speaks of the flood.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by wmscott, posted 12-16-2002 4:55 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2002 8:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 55 by wmscott, posted 12-19-2002 6:02 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 52 of 234 (26907)
12-16-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coragyps
12-16-2002 8:59 PM

^ It's preciesely El Capitan that creationists suggest are transported and compactified marine creatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coragyps, posted 12-16-2002 8:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 12-16-2002 9:36 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 54 of 234 (26916)
12-16-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by edge
12-16-2002 9:36 PM

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by edge, posted 12-16-2002 9:36 PM edge has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 56 of 234 (27411)
12-19-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by wmscott
12-19-2002 6:02 PM

wmscott writes:
There is no scriptural requirement that the surface of the earth is to be literally burned by fire. In the Bible fire is a symbol of destruction, and everlasting fire is a symbol of permanent destruction of things that will never be rebuilt.
That is your belief that goes against the precendents of Scripture. I cna't prove it to you but the precednets of Scriptures suggest it will be a literal fire.
only the persons inside the ark were symbolically baptized by the waters in the same manner as the Israelites were when they went through the Red Sea.
The ark floated on top, their past was the world and unsaved below. The Israelites did walk under the level of the water and their pst life, the Egyltians wer literally washed away. God is incredibly detailed with his patterns.
I can find no reference to the literal earth being spoken of as being baptised in the flood.
If you want to maintain that, although 1 Pet 3:21 identifies the waters of the flood with baptism waters, and that the earth was completely covered, that that doesn't represent a baptism of the earth you are free to do so.
It is very clear that the earth was an object of reworking as was man:
I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. Gen 6:13
Both man and earth were 'baptized'. In Greek, baptism means immersion in water.
The sceanrio whereby the land is birthed out of water on creaitn day 3, baptized in the flood and refined by fire all literally is incredible evidence of God's systematic mixing of natural and spiritual.
You can ignore it if you want but I think you just don't like me showing the clear reasons we really think YEC is the true declaraiton of Scripture. The entire geology of earth is his and is decribed in Scripture with its timing.
For example here are some of the obvious problems I saw.
TB: (1) Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.
The same catchments that drained the Flood waters, rapidly eroding soft sediments into gorges, are also the catchments that provide the source for these same rivers today.
Incorrect, many rivers, such as those draining from formerly glaciated areas show signs of super flooding and have vastly over sized river valleys. Most rivers do have oversized river valleys which were no doubt enlarged when the flood waters drained into the seas, but the river valleys are not proportional to the drainage areas compared to rivers in once glaciated areas. The pattern seen indicates large scale water releases from glaciers followed by somewhat smaller global drainage. The impossibility of forming gorges in soft sediments was pointed out, as was the impossibility for the soft sediments to be turned into stone.
Are you aware that I was quoting the mainstream catch cries of Lyellian uniformitarianism?
Rivers follow gorges proportional to their size.
That was one of Lyell's argeuments! I was humouring him.
I don't believe it is systematically true in every case!!
I suspect it is largely true but not every time. My flood arguement about catchments shows why one might expect it to be true much of the time. I agree there was a recent catastrophic ice age so you may be qute right that glaciation explins the anomalies.
Please, stop thinking you can trounce a YEC flood so easily Wm!
TB: (2) Layers only form slowly
Layers have been proven beyond doubt to form in seconds and minutes under rapid flow. (See numerous posts on this web site).
As pointed out to you by a number of posters, geology has long accepted that layers can form very rapidly, and that rapid formation is apparent when it has occurred and that many formations do not show signs of rapid formation but instead record the passage of many years in their creation. I thought their posts in that thread on this and in several others were very clear cut, a open and shut case in that they showed conclusively that certain formations could have only been formed over very long periods of time.
I appreciate that mainstream geologists have come around to rapid layering over th elast 30 years. I have posted various mainstream excerpts myself to demonstrate that. The point is that this means most formations themselves could have been layed in a matter of days.
Yes there are salt and chalk to think about. With accelerated decay heating and inorganic calicum I thnk these are all within the realms of possibility.
It is not cut and dry. The YEC scenario opens up an entire new universe of possibilities that habve to be carefuly examined. Much metamorphism may even be due to rapid radioheating.
TB: (3) The formations around the world can all be assigned to a dozen or so modern day sedimentary environments.
Firstly most of the geo-col comes from a single environment - marine inundation on to land.
Most deposits are sedimentary, and most are probably marine, but not all, and not all of the GC is sedimentary. No one seems to have been able to reach you with the point that if the GC was all created in the flood, then all of the GC would be marine sediments. Even if 99% of the GC was, with only a single non marine layer in the middle, that alone would shoot down the theory that it was all created in the flood. Plus YECs try to cite formations that are not marine sediments as being created in the flood, which is a clear impossibility. The non marine layers are non flood formed, there is no other possible answer. It is unreasonable to attempt to attribute non marine deposits to a global flood, it is too easy to disprove, all one has to do is look for marine traces such as marine diatoms. If marine traces are not present in the formation, that precludes former contact with ocean water. A simple marine trace test of the GC will of course reveal many formations which have had no contact with the sea and thus could not have been formed in the flood. Considering the large number of formations free of marine traces that appear in the GC, YEC is shown to be completely impossible many times over.
We have pointed out on dozens of occasions that we agree the flood occurred in surges with even weeks and months inbetween for accelraed decay evaporaiton, metamorphisms and temporary rehabitaitons from high ground.
The Scriptures talk of the 'windows of the heavens' opening up so there would have been huge fesh water beds formed in between the marine surges. You ignore these things everytime Wm.
I am not familiar with the "Yellowstone petrified forest fairytale," what is the fairytale? There are a number of petrified forests found around the world and of course the remains of non petrified wood as well. So what is your problem with Yellowstone?
You are clearly not aware of Austin's seminal work at Mt St Helens. He has showed that the forests of floating logs on Spirit Lake are sinking vertically, rooted ends first, and settling in mud at different levels giving he appearence of multiple generations of forests. The 27 generations of Yellowstone forests at different levels are predicted by him to be the sam phenomenon.
On a different topic, in support of his floating mat model of coal formtaion (dhave you read about that??), he also has found 3 or 4 feet of bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake. This is how coal formed, not in swamps.
As for reefs, they are a common formation and they are where they were, they have not been moved, reefs are made out of coral, not shells. Coral reefs are firmly fixed in place, and form the foundation for coral islands and much of the state of Florida.
I am not claiming they moved whole! I have read that the fossil reefs look systematically diffenert to todays reefs. I have no ref for that currently but I'll keep an eye out.
It is impossible to create the type of pattern seen created by plant roots by currents, just as it would be impossible to create "the trackways, burrows, impressions, resting marks, and feeding marks formed by organisms in sediment and preserved in the rock record--are ubiquitous throughout the Supai and the Hermit.
That is the problem with putting scientific reconstructions ahead of Scripture. Man thinks he is wise. Those trackways could have occurred between surges and the burrows could be escape burrows.
I am still waiting for your answers to the problems I raised with rapid plate movement in post number 344 in the old thread.
I will get to it.
All of these issues can be seen for wht they are. Shoehorning. Mainstream science shoe-horms the data into eons and we shoe-horn it into the flood year. Why? Becasue one of them is the right answer, it's just too difficult to tell for sure becasue it's so complicated and we don't know all of the starting conditions and dynamics. Every point you bring up can be reinterpreted via the flood and there will be some questions that neither of us can answer with certainty.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by wmscott, posted 12-19-2002 6:02 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 12-19-2002 7:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 61 by wmscott, posted 12-22-2002 1:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 58 of 234 (27413)
12-19-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coragyps
12-19-2002 7:20 PM

OK Coragyps. Explain your arguement in total please.
This reaction generates too much heat, is that your point?
What if it the calicum was already present as a carbonate on the surface of the earth? How do you know what the pre-flood earth was like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 12-19-2002 7:20 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 12-19-2002 8:41 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 63 of 234 (27679)
12-22-2002 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by wmscott
12-22-2002 1:29 PM

There is no requirement for or mention of a major reshaping of the literal earth's surface.
I think you'll find that reading the literally hundreds of verses littered throughout scripture on reshaping valleys and mountains might probably be descriptions of the flood. You can claim they are creation week events but I think they are both. I cant prove it to you.
In fact YEC's reshaping of the earth was never a Christian doctrine until after the discovery of the GC, at which time it was invented as a way of trying to explain away the obvious great age shown in the GC. If it was really taught by the Bible, why didn't any one teach it before the discovery of the GC?
God is continuing to unfold his word to us. Some of it is more relevant in this scientific age than it was earlier.
Read verse twenty, it was the people in the ark who were 'baptized' by the waters, not the earth. A baptism is a dedication, it is not just a dunking.
I believe it was both. Neither of us can prove anything here Wm.
The length of time as shown by the growth of plant roots and animal activity is far too long to fit in the time frame of the biblical flood.
We would simply claim that these are uprooted plants buried in transported soil and rock sediment. It is simply an assumpiton by you and mainstram sceince that these are genuine soil horizons.
The flood was about a year in length, how much time can you allow for this formation and the formations below it to form, then to be exposed, then animals rush in and make traces and then the area is reflooded, and so on.
Of course ultimately, in each geographical location, it would be nice to have an inventory of the entire evidence for habitaiton. In the absence of that, the evidence I have seen so far is explanable within the realms of possiblity by the flood so I will assume the flood model is still alive.
So you have these periodic flood surges that come in and drop a sand layer and then depart, why doesn't this hermit formation extend out into the sea floor from where the surges come from? How could the flood level retreat without depositing any hermit sand outside the area of the formation? and why is the deposit not made up of different types of material if the water keep surging in and out of the area?
These freshwater layers do grade into marine beds as one trsaverses horizonally. It fits the flood model perfectly. Your issues of composition favour our model better than yours.
The incredible purity of beds throughout the geo-col are fantastic evidence of hydropdynamic sorting.
As far as I know, nearly all YECs have abandoned the canopy theory because they all see the obvious impossibilities with it.
I fully agree the canopy model is dead. In our model catastrophic tectonics would have boiled significant water to create vast freshwater beds. I allow for possibility of an extrateristial origin of water as well (eg comet).
The absence of marine traces in these formations is fatal to YEC flood theories.
Not at all. Inbetween surges there should be no marine evidence.
And even if you could come up with another major source of freshwater, there is the problem that when rivers enter the sea, the freshwater flows over the top of the more dense saltwater. Even a large 'pocket' of freshwater would rise to the top and salt water would flow beneath it. As the sediments from the freshwater dropped to the bottom, they would pass through and be deposited in saltwater.
This is irrelevant. The nature of the beds are determines from the fossil types anyway.
Currents would of course rapidly mix any 'pockets' of freshwater into the saltwater, mixing marine traces into them. Even a fresh water rain on exposed ground between your 'flood surges' will not work, for each flood surge will deposit a layer of marine traces on the surface when the water returns which are not found in none marine formations.
I think you have missed what we are really proposing. The gross structure of any local geocol might typicaly be:
marine groups (2000 feet)
freswhwater groups (500 feet)
marine groups (2000 feet)
freswhwater groups (500 feet)
marine groups (2000 feet)
freswhwater groups (500 feet)
covering, for example, the entire Paleozoic or Mesozoic in three cycles. At he boundaries there may be small scale oscialations between marine and freshwater but at the gorss level the above is a good first order description of a typical 200 million years of geo-col.
So we explain it as 3 or 4 marine surges with freshwater depositon in between. No contradiciton and, in fact, it is the same explanation that mainestream science uses except they we replace 'transgression/regression' with 'surge'.
Using a heavy rain on still exposed hills to wash down material onto lower also exposed elevations, also runs into problems. As pointed out above, the amount of rain that fell while large, was not a major source of flood water. This limits such erosional effects to reasonable sizes, as we would expect to find in areas that today experience extreme rain fall events.
You have missed the point that the freshwater flows would erode the soft recently laid marine beds (during marine regression) in highlands as well as pre-flood rocks. And who knows the volume with tectonically generated rain?
Then there is the problem of the rain, the Bible states it lasted 40 days and ended, yet most deposits show layering with a dry surfaces that recorded foot prints and plant grown, with a single 40 day rain you would at most have only one such surface when the rain ended.
Are you referring to freshwater beds I presume? During shallow flows there is nothing stopping multuple levels of temporary habitaiton and these environments do not have to be 'dry'.
So there is no way YEC can account for multiple dry surfaces in non marine formations. Then we have the non marine formations that are wind blown with reworking with plant growth in-between the reworking, under YEC the wind reworking had to occur after the rain ended and before the water rose high enough to cover them. Such deposits require time for the plant growth to occur a number of times and yet are frequently found beneath many layers that YEC claims as flood deposits.
I've pointed out our answers to aparent paleosoils, eolian and evaporite deposts on many occasions.
Also if the flood was so erosive that it picked up so much sediments in it's waters, why weren't the areas that were affected by 'flood surge' deposits, later washed away when the flood waters covered them to later deposit the formations above them?
They were washed away!! Just like in the mainstream model we do not claim the geo-col is complete. There were probably entire formations laid in any local geo-col that are not evident. The highlands would have been covered by marine sediments that were eroded away during retreat. the mainstream claim that only 50% of the land surface has been simultaneoulsy covered by marine transgression is utterly ridiculous. With the amount of the geo-col missing as we all know that 50% is a lower limit.
And if the flood switched from erosion to depositing before reaching that elevation, then there should have been no erosion above that elevation, only deposition on top of what was already there including the 'sediment hills.' Yet this has not been found or even claimed by YECs.
I think you need to explain that again. The flood eroded from highlands and deposited into basins just like everyone would expect.
Actually I prefer it since the scriptures do not support YEC, and any detailed examination of scripture will rapidly bring to light how YECs frequently twist Bible verses to try to vainly support their man-made theories.
I simply disagree. The Scriptures plainly talk of creation 6000 years ago with a flood 4500 years ago. The creation week details are described in a time sequence as well.
Perhaps the biggest difference between us is, I don't claim that the Bible states my theory is how the flood happened.
I do my creation research and education as part of a local congregation under the authority of our eldership. I am not a one-man show and what I am saying is part of our local declaration of the gospel. So if you have a problem with my interpretaion then it is with the body of elders from my church Australasia-wide.
I accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, but I also recognise that any interpretation of that word is prone to human error.
So do I.
If I am proved wrong, it is just my theory that is disproved.
I am not declaring a theory. I am declaring what our eldership has declared to be the gospel and I have found the scientific data mostly fits it like a glove when we take creation and the flood literally.
And we have yet to even deal with the problems I raised with rapid plate movement in post number 344 in the old thread.
I'll get to that over X-mas.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by wmscott, posted 12-22-2002 1:29 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by wmscott, posted 12-23-2002 7:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 12-23-2002 9:09 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 86 of 234 (28926)
01-12-2003 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by wmscott
12-23-2002 7:33 PM

Just before we go on, can you remind me whether your flood covers the entire Earth? And if not what do you make of the Biblical description of the flood 'covering the highest mountains' and doing it for about a year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by wmscott, posted 12-23-2002 7:33 PM wmscott has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member

Message 87 of 234 (28947)
01-12-2003 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by wmscott
12-23-2002 7:33 PM

I think you exaggerate greatly about hundreds of verses, I can think of only a few off hand that you may be referring to.
I have had a quick look and there are dozens of verses describing the mountains quaking and the land being inundated but I'll agree that I can't prove a 'reshaping' Scriptually. But the Scripute is clear in Psalms (as well as Genesis of course) that the entire Earth was covered and if that didn't reshape the Earth then nothing would.
If you have problems locating your verses, I would recommend you get a reference bible CD with which you will be able to do word searches for what you are looking for.
I've been using Quickverse for about 15 years now wm! And the web is pretty handy too. At BibleGateway I can access about a dozen translations for free.
I had stated that only the people in the ark were symbolically baptised by the flood waters and not the literal earth, to which you replied:
I believe it was both. Neither of us can prove anything here Wm.
Actually I did prove my point by pointing out that without a willful decision to commit oneself to God, there can not be a baptism. The physical earth being an inanimate object is incapable of deciding to dedicate itself to God. Unless you can find a scriptural way around this problem, you have conceded the point.
If you want to take God's patterns to ridiculous extents feel free. Do you believe that the Passover lamb represented Christ? Did the Passover lamb ever teach parables? Of course the Passover lamb represented Christ but we do not need it to have taugh parables. Noah's flood representing the baptism of the Earth is quite reasonable given its birth out of waters and firey refinement in Rev 20-22.
For example, why are the trees and other plants be found all level with the old ground level if it isn't real?
How do you know this regarding the Hermite? The so-called 'ground levels' of non-marine beds are so flat that they beg interpretation as huge flood deposits! I think you may have a misunderstading concerning the nature of the Hermite layers wm. They are simply fresh water beds primarily containing fern leaves!
If these trees sank in the sediments, why are their tops missing?
Have a look at the Mt St Helen's forests floating on Spirit lake.
I covered both alternative sources of water you mention in my book in the chapter on canopy theories, they both suffer from the same impossible fatal flaw, they would both release too much heat which would result in sterilizing the entire earth, ark and all.
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.
The answers to the 'mysteries of the flood' may be far more encompassing than you think. Radioisotopes become the trigger of the flood rather than a method of dating for example. Comets are jets of steam that reached escape elocity. The floodgenerateed the geo-col and is the mother of all extinction level events. Etc, etc.
We know that nether of these events has occurred on a scale large enough to supply a major part of flood waters,
I'm happy to go with the mainstream account of the origin of the waters (ie tectonically generated global sea-level changes). I simply allow for a 100% coverage rather than a 50% coverage of the land.
for example you claim the animal traces found in the GC were created by animals after the 40 days of rain and before they drowned in the flood, the steam would have killed them before they could have made any tracks.
There may have been localized regions devoid of radioisotopes and heating.
For every one of your questions there may be an answer that emerges natrually from the model.
Even under YEC, since we have the tracks, there could not have been a huge release of steam at the time of the flood. This limits the flood rain intensity to what could be expected in heavy rain events as seen in modern times.
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!
TB: You have missed the point that the freshwater flows would erode the soft recently laid marine beds (during marine regression) in highlands as well as pre-flood rocks.
WM: No I didn't miss it, the lack of marine traces precludes it as a possibility. Marine sediments reworked by freshwater would still contain reworked marine trace fossils. Rain also is incapable of instantly turning rocks into sediments, it does happen slowly over long periods of time, but that doesn't fit at all with a YEC flood. Which is why I said you would need hills of sediments ready to be washed way by the rain, since there wasn't enough time in the biblical flood for rain to dissolve large quantities of rock.
There are plenty of mixed marine/fresh water beds at the boundaries between fresh/marine as you would know. None of us expect instant rocks. We've had thousands of years for rocks to form. 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.
TB: I think you need to explain that again. The flood eroded from highlands and deposited into basins just like everyone would expect.
WM: That would eliminate your flood surges! It also would reraise the question of how animal tracks where buried in the GC if they occurred after the rain had stopped and the area was above water.
No it doesn't, the erosion from highlands and depositon into basins happens with each surge. Our surges correspond to the mainstream epeiric seas. It's all mainstream. The geo-col is simply a story of about 6 surges of alternating fresh and marine layering, mostly of the latter. Temporary habitation occurred in between surges as it did mainstream.
The creative days described in Genesis are not literal days as shown by the fact that we are still in the seventh day.
Clearly you are now taking a particular, and non-standard, theological view of God's rest day.
Use of the term day in regard to creation is also shown to refer to 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.
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!
I had assumed you had some sort of religious affiliation and some connection with YEC groups. Yes, I do believe your church elders are in error and have taken a turn down the wrong path. The question is do you want to follow them even if they are wrong? Remember Matthew 7:21-23.
I take my direction from the Body of Christ, not science, my own thinking or even para-church creationist groups. The Body of Christ is the only context for revelation. Scripture clearly tells us to hear from outside of ourselves. I do my work in response to a genuine presbytry-calling. Para-church groups and individuals are doing very good work but they really need to come back under the authority of the church. There can be no other way. This is His way. The super-apostles Paul and Peter even submitted themselves to the Jerusalem presbytry.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by wmscott, posted 12-23-2002 7:33 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by wmscott, posted 01-15-2003 4:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024