Jump to content


Photo

Problems With Noahachianismdiluvialismfloodology


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 October 2007 - 03:37 AM

Any comments vashgun?

#22 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 04 October 2007 - 12:47 PM

This is a flood basalt - not an explosive eruption.


There are still a TON of different variables that are being ASSUMED. Those Assumptions are always based on Old Earth Theology.

Let's use your syrup example. It's a very good one, kudos to you!

You hand me a bottle of syrup and tell me I can't pour it all out in one second.
So we make a bet for a dollar that I can't do it.
You're ASSUMPTION (based on common sense) Is that I'm going to tip the bottle upside down and hope it all comes out of the little 1cm^2 nozzle quickly.
In reality, I'm going to take a razor knife cut the bottle in half down the center and dump each side, All of a sudden that little opening turns into a very large one.

Actually I think you would still win, cuase I couldnt' do all that in one second, and then some is going to stick to the side. But if you gave me 10 seconds to get 95% of the syrup out, then that dollar would be mine!!!


if you want to generate a new mathematical / geologic model suggesting it can happen quickly, I would love to see it.


Sorry I am otherwise gainfully employeed. Just like the geologist I work very hard on other stuff, and all my clients believe everything I tell them is true B)

Wow, sounds like you are very confident in the math behind your model.


Umm... Thanks

I would love to see how you did those calculations.


Well I did draw a little sketch of the syrup bottle, I used Hungray man syrup, it comes in a microwavable bottle that is shorter.


**Ikester, I know that comment was a one liner, but I really can't help myself, everyone knows I didn't need to do any mathematical modeling**

What layer represents the flood?


Does it matter? All I'm trying to do is make it known that the Idea Of those layers taking billions of years to form, is not necessarily true. I don't even need a flood for that.


I am happy if you give me some references if you are relying on calculations that you have read.

View Post


Me re-writing a 100page report on Lava Layers is not necessary. The point is, that in that 100page report, assumptions are made. Those assumptions are based on, what they can see today, and what they predict conditions were in the past.

The problems is they are assuming the past was billions of years ago and they make no assumption on thousands of years ago.



If you are really interested in Mathmatic modeling and you want to dig up one of the reports, I could make some time to flip through it and point out where some of those time restricted assumptions are.

#23 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 14 October 2007 - 08:09 PM

There are still a TON of different variables that are being ASSUMED.  Those Assumptions are always based on Old Earth Theology.
....

The problems is they are assuming the past was billions of years ago and they make no assumption on thousands of years ago.

View Post


I think it is worth considering the history. In the middle of the 18th century, I think it is fair to say that the majority of scientists and thinking people assumed a young earth model but no real theories had been created. However, as geologists started looking close at the earth and the reports around the earth accumulated, more and more scientists started acceptiing that the earth had to be much older. By the middle of the 19th century, most geologists accepted that the earth was at least a few million years old.

So let's go back to our syrup example. You accept that a 1 second theory of syrup pouring is unlikely for a standard bottle. If you want to argue that the conditions were different, that is fine, but you need to show evidence. Just saying it was a miracle won't do.

So now let us consider some lava flows. When Mount St. Helens blew up, 1 cubic kilometer of pumice and ash were blown out of the mountain and covered much of eastern Washington.

Posted Image

Krakatoa was 9 cubic kilometers.

Compare that to the last explosion of Yellowstone which was 1000 cubic kilometers and buried parts of Kansas in ash to a depth of 9 feet (you can still find this ash if you dig down).

However, we have barely begun. Flood basalts are the big ones across the world. The most recent flood basalt was in Iceland in 1783 which opened up a 25 kilometer crack and poured out 12 cubic kilometers of basalt over an 8 month period. I saw it in August and it is very impressive. It poisoned the west half of Iceland killing much of everything and is believed it may have resulted in the deaths of 30,000 Britains.

http://findarticles....14/ai_n17127791

A 12 cubic kilometer flow is impressive I can assure you, but now let's get serious.

Consider the Deccan Traps
"The present volume of directly observable lava flows is estimated to be around 512,000 km³."
The original flows were probably twice that or a million cubic kilometers.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps

The Siberian Traps represent about 2 million cubic kilometers but may have been 4 million cubic kilometers. These are flows the size of Texas.
http://en.wikipedia..../Siberian_Traps

Currently, the calculation is that these flows lasted a brief 200,000 years in the Permain and raised the temperature of the planet by 5 degrees. If the flow lasted just 100,000 years, then the temperature would be closer to 10 degrees. It also contributed to a poisoning of the planet. When this flow occured, 96% of all marine species (like trilobites) disappear from the fossil record. Never to be seen in higher levels again.

But there is much more! The Greenland lava fields, partly under the Greenland ice sheet are now estimated to be 10 million cubic kilometers! Yes, that is equivalent to a Mt. St Helens blowing up every day for 10 million days.

http://www.sciencema...ry/316/5824/527

We put all these flows together from Krakatoa to New Mexico to the Hawaiin Islands, and we are reaching towards 100 million cubic kilometers of lava.

That is 100 Mt. St Helens every day for a million days in a row.

Now, you want to pour all of this out of your bottle in 1000 years or so? If all this came out in just 1 million years, life could not survive on the planet. I say, you can't do it. Your theory doesn't work. These are the ideas that convinced the scientists of the 19th century that a young earth theory could not work.

No one since has shown that such a young earth theory can work. But if you think you can do it, you are welcome to show your math. But you can't just make a claim that it can be done. You must show it.

#24 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 15 October 2007 - 10:23 AM

I don't understand the "must" part. God is making all the truthful claims. I am not a follower of "must" but a follower of the truth. Causing a sense of "you must believe this now or prove it wrong now" does not discredit God in any way, shape or form. I am in no hurry for science of any sort. No sense of urgency needs to attached to this issue

The Flood happened and the dates are way off as others have repeatedly shown.





God bless,
Al

#25 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 15 October 2007 - 01:20 PM

I think it is worth considering the history. In the middle of the 18th century, I think it is fair to say that the majority of scientists and thinking people assumed a young earth model but no real theories had been created. However, as geologists started looking close at the earth and the reports around the earth accumulated, more and more scientists started acceptiing that the earth had to be much older. By the middle of the 19th century, most geologists accepted that the earth was at least a few million years old.


Well that an interesting view point. I can't say I really agree with it too much. Most major advances in Geology are pretty young. And we all know how I feel about people accepting evolution versus having it shoved down thier throats.

So let's go back to our syrup example. You accept that a 1 second theory of syrup pouring is unlikely for a standard bottle. If you want to argue that the conditions were different, that is fine, but you need to show evidence. Just saying it was a miracle won't do.


I am not making any claims for miracles. I'm saying it's impossible to know any of the conditions to a certain extent. When filling in those conditions geologist naturally use old earth variables. This is very true, all your examples show this.


So now let us consider some lava flows.


All your examples are very nice and very well thought out. I think the one thing that needs to be pointed out, is that just like studying the weather this stuff is completely unpredictable. It all happens in irrational ways that we don't understand. Trying to predict the past lava flows is the same as trying to predict the future ones. We can't do it. We have sensors all over the earths crusts and we still have trouble giving any warning about earth quakes. Although great advancements have been made.


No one since has shown that such a young earth theory can work. But if you think you can do it, you are welcome to show your math.


Seriously just stop with the math report requests. As I told you before, you pull out on of those reports and I'll point out all the old earth variables. They are plenty in there.

My goal is not to write a 200 page report to prove to you that it can be done. As I stated it is Impossible for me or for any geologist to know exactly how all the layers got there, there are too many variables, a lot of assumptions have to be made. You keep pretending that it is essential for me to provide some mathematical equations for me to have any crediability.

My goal in this thread is to show to the people who may be reading it, that other possibilities certainly exist and could be explored.

But you can't just make a claim that it can be done. You must show it.

View Post


No I don't have to show it by providing a 200 page geological report. A well written two paragraph explaination is perfectly acceptable for the purposes of this forum.

............


Okay, so putting that aside and addressing the real issue.

We were talking about the flows of lava versus time
You suggest Low flow Long time.
I suggest High Flow Short time.

And quickly browsing all your well listed sources on lava flows, I see one really good objection to my theory. The mention of large amounts of Lava increasing the temperature and having an adverse effect on life.

That certainly is true. A couple million cubic kilometers of lava dumped on the earth would increase the temperature.

We are getting well out of my comfort zone here, but do you have links or anything to temperature dissapation formulas?

My initial thinking is that it's not going to have anywhere near a global effect. Certainly a few mile radius around the site, but this kind of thing can be calculated.

Also, we can calculate how long it will take for all that heat to dissapate. Once again I really don't think it's going to be years, certainly a couple of weeks. But we can calculate this.

So the question is. If two million cubic kilometers of lava get dumped overnight, what size area will be effected significantly by temperature, and for how long. We also have to consider a different atmosphere. Most creationist believe it was a denser atmosphere richer in oyxgen.

I remember studying that very breifly in one of my material classes or something, but it's definitely out of my comfort zones. But if you have the equations, I'm curious enough to go through them.

#26 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 16 October 2007 - 09:50 PM

Well that an interesting view point.  I can't say I really agree with it too much.  Most major advances in Geology are pretty young. 

View Post


I would be happy to reccommend some books for you. The history of geology and evolutionary theory in the century before Darwin is quite interesting. "The Map that Changed the World" by Winchester is quite good. Larson's books are quite good as well. Dragon Seekers by McGowan is also an interesting story of how the first dinosaur bones were interpreted and how this inpacted geology and biology before Darwin.

Here is a good link as well. I will take one quote
http://www.bringyou....ogetics/p82.htm

" Naturalists of the early nineteenth century accumulated a great deal of information that led to changes in their view of earth's history and the role of the Noachic deluge in it. They all paid scrupulous attention to the full spectrum of available geological information and adjusted their ideas in response to that information. Many of them were orthodox Christians, and yet they felt no need to distort the evidence they encountered in order to sustain their belief in the biblical deluge. One finds no appeal to miracle on the part of even the most ardent advocate of the deluge, William Buckland. The premier geologists were persuaded that existing geological evidence supported the notion of a global or at least continental deluge. Every one of them rejected the old diluvialism which attributed the deposition of fossiliferous secondary and tertiary strata to the flood, however. They identified only surface deposits as the effects of the deluge.

Even that view collapsed, however, because of the importance that these men placed on extrabiblical evidence. Buckland, Sedgwick, and others ultimately abandoned nineteenth-century diluvialism when it became clear that gravels, valleys, polished rocks, cave deposits, and the like could no longer be satisfactorily understood as the result of a giant deluge. Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation. "


It all happens in irrational ways that we don't understand.  Trying to predict the past lava flows is the same as trying to predict the future ones.  We can't do it. 

View Post


The nice thing about Lava, is that most of it sticks around. You can get a yard stick and measure it. Drill a hole and find how far it extends. I do not understand why you think this is so hard.


Seriously just stop with the math report requests.  As I told you before, you pull out on of those reports and I'll point out all the old earth variables.  They are plenty in there. 

My goal is not to write a 200 page report to prove to you that it can be done. 

View Post


As I mentioned earlier, science is like a huge jigsaw puzzle. Current science has put thousands upon thousands of pieces tightly together. I realize that non-scientists may not see that many of the pieces but really there are many.

Creationists stand over the shoulder of the scientists and make the claim that all the pieces could go together a different way. I honestly do not believe that is possible, but I challenge anyone to try. Simply pointing at a few pieces and arguing that a piece could go somewhere else (doubting an assumption) really means little. The real science is in putting those pieces together into a coherent whole.

If creationists want to make progress, they need to do the hard work and try and attempt a theory that puts the pieces together. Saying you don't like one of the assumptions of the current theory really means very little to scientists and will never have much impact.

I honestly do not believe you you can put all the lava evidence together and make a theory work with anything less than 100 million years. I think you could win a Nobel prize if you could show a set of consistent assumptions that would allow you to make it work in under 1 million years. But you want to go for 10,000 years? Not even close to possible, but I really want to see someone try. These really are devasting world wide events.

It is really worth thinking about the size of a 4 million cubic kilmoter eruption. Or the Lake Superior lava flows that are 10,000 meters thick (more than 20 empire state buildings stacked up).

Yes, the effects of lava flows are complex. The flows themselves can create a lot of heat, while the sulferous gaseous and dust that spreads around the planet can both poison and cool. To put a 1,000,000 cubic kilmoters eruption in perspective, consider the only known flood basalt in the last 1000 years - the 12 to 15 cubic kilometer flow in Iceland in 1783.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakagigar
The consequences for Iceland were catastrophic. Around 21% of the population[4] died in the famine of 1783 to 1784 after the fissure eruptions ceased. Around 80% of sheep, 50% of cattle and 50% of horses died because of dental and skeletal fluorosis from the 8 million tons of fluorine that were released

An estimated 122 Tg (120 Million tons) of sulphur dioxide were emitted into the atmosphere: approximately equivalent to three times the total annual European industrial output in 2006, and also equivalent to a Mount Pinatubo-1991 eruption every three days.[8] This outpouring of sulphur dioxide during unusual weather conditions caused a thick sulphurous haze to spread across western Europe, resulting in many thousands of deaths throughout 1783 and the winter of 1784.

The summer of 1783 was the hottest on record and a rare high pressure zone over Iceland caused the winds to blow to the south-east. The poisonous cloud drifted to Bergen in Denmark–Norway, then spread to Prague in the Province of Bohemia by 17 June, Berlin by 18 June, Paris by 20 June, Le Havre by 22 June, and to the Kingdom of Great Britain by 23 June. The fog was so thick that boats stayed in port, unable to navigate, and the sun was described as "blood coloured".

Consequences in North America

In North America, the winter of 1784 was the longest and one of the coldest on record. It was the longest period of below-zero temperature in New England, the largest accumulation of snow in New Jersey, and the longest freezing over of Chesapeake Bay. There was ice skating in Charleston Harbor, a huge snowstorm hit the south, the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans, and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico.


Posted Image
http://en.wikipedia...._2004-07-01.jpg

#27 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 16 October 2007 - 10:20 PM

I think it is worth considering the history. In the middle of the 18th century, I think it is fair to say that the majority of scientists and thinking people assumed a young earth model but no real theories had been created. However, as geologists started looking close at the earth and the reports around the earth accumulated, more and more scientists started acceptiing that the earth had to be much older. By the middle of the 19th century, most geologists accepted that the earth was at least a few million years old.

So let's go back to our syrup example. You accept that a 1 second theory of syrup pouring is unlikely for a standard bottle. If you want to argue that the conditions were different, that is fine, but you need to show evidence. Just saying it was a miracle won't do.

So now let us consider some lava flows. When Mount St. Helens blew up, 1 cubic kilometer of pumice and ash were blown out of the mountain and covered much of eastern Washington.

Posted Image

Krakatoa was 9 cubic kilometers.

Compare that to the last explosion of Yellowstone which was 1000 cubic kilometers and buried parts of Kansas in ash to a depth of 9 feet (you can still find this ash if you dig down).

However, we have barely begun. Flood basalts are the big ones across the world. The most recent flood basalt was in Iceland in 1783 which opened up a 25 kilometer crack and poured out 12 cubic kilometers of basalt over an 8 month period. I saw it in August and it is very impressive. It poisoned the west half of Iceland killing much of everything and is believed it may have resulted in the deaths of 30,000 Britains.

http://findarticles....14/ai_n17127791

A 12 cubic kilometer flow is impressive I can assure you, but now let's get serious.

Consider the Deccan Traps
"The present volume of directly observable lava flows is estimated to be around 512,000 km³."
The original flows were probably twice that or a million cubic kilometers.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps

The Siberian Traps represent about 2 million cubic kilometers but may have been 4 million cubic kilometers. These are flows the size of Texas.
http://en.wikipedia..../Siberian_Traps

Currently, the calculation is that these flows lasted a brief 200,000 years in the Permain and raised the temperature of the planet by 5 degrees. If the flow lasted just 100,000 years, then the temperature would be closer to 10 degrees. It also contributed to a poisoning of the planet. When this flow occured, 96% of all marine species (like trilobites) disappear from the fossil record. Never to be seen in higher levels again.

But there is much more! The Greenland lava fields, partly under the Greenland ice sheet are now estimated to be 10 million cubic kilometers! Yes, that is equivalent to a Mt. St Helens blowing up every day for 10 million days.

http://www.sciencema...ry/316/5824/527

We put all these flows together from Krakatoa to New Mexico to the Hawaiin Islands, and we are reaching towards 100 million cubic kilometers of lava.

That is 100 Mt. St Helens every day for a million days in a row.

Now, you want to pour all of this out of your bottle in 1000 years or so? If all this came out in just 1 million years, life could not survive on the planet. I say, you can't do it. Your theory doesn't work. These are the ideas that convinced the scientists of the 19th century that a young earth theory could not work.

No one since has shown that such a young earth theory can work. But if you think you can do it, you are welcome to show your math. But you can't just make a claim that it can be done. You must show it.

View Post


I have just read an article entitled "The Rapid Ascent of Basalt Magmas." by Dr. Andrew Snelling Http://www.icr.org.

In this article Dr. Snelling talks about magmas typically ascend from depths of 35-50 miles down. This depth was supported by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) measurements done on xenoliths and the water distribution in pyroxene grains.

Then they calculated of the basalt (they list the calculation used if you want to see it please read the article) and found it ascended at 6 meters per hour making it possible for magmas to reach the earths surface in 2-8 hours. The article claims that timescale problems for the flood be be dismissed. Two additional ideas presented I and I will quote the first one verbatim here:

"Furthermore, the volume and scale of the basalt lavas found in the geologic record, such as the so-called flood basalts of the Deccan and Siberian Traps, testify to the global catastrophism operating in the Flood year, in contrast to today's occasional, small, and relatively insignificant basalt eruptions."

The article then concluded that it could be possible that the ocean floor ruptured into plates and through runaway subduction cause large mantle plumes and fast melting of rock beneath the mid-ocean rift zones. This "catastrophic plate tectonics" during the Flood could be a practical answer to th basalt flows of the earth's rock record.

Bob Barclay

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 October 2007 - 04:06 AM

I think it is worth considering the history. In the middle of the 18th century, I think it is fair to say that the majority of scientists and thinking people assumed a young earth model but no real theories had been created. However, as geologists started looking close at the earth and the reports around the earth accumulated, more and more scientists started acceptiing that the earth had to be much older. By the middle of the 19th century, most geologists accepted that the earth was at least a few million years old.

So let's go back to our syrup example. You accept that a 1 second theory of syrup pouring is unlikely for a standard bottle. If you want to argue that the conditions were different, that is fine, but you need to show evidence. Just saying it was a miracle won't do.

So now let us consider some lava flows. When Mount St. Helens blew up, 1 cubic kilometer of pumice and ash were blown out of the mountain and covered much of eastern Washington.

Posted Image

Krakatoa was 9 cubic kilometers.

Compare that to the last explosion of Yellowstone which was 1000 cubic kilometers and buried parts of Kansas in ash to a depth of 9 feet (you can still find this ash if you dig down).

However, we have barely begun. Flood basalts are the big ones across the world. The most recent flood basalt was in Iceland in 1783 which opened up a 25 kilometer crack and poured out 12 cubic kilometers of basalt over an 8 month period. I saw it in August and it is very impressive. It poisoned the west half of Iceland killing much of everything and is believed it may have resulted in the deaths of 30,000 Britains.

http://findarticles....14/ai_n17127791

A 12 cubic kilometer flow is impressive I can assure you, but now let's get serious.

Consider the Deccan Traps
"The present volume of directly observable lava flows is estimated to be around 512,000 km³."
The original flows were probably twice that or a million cubic kilometers.
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deccan_Traps

The Siberian Traps represent about 2 million cubic kilometers but may have been 4 million cubic kilometers. These are flows the size of Texas.
http://en.wikipedia..../Siberian_Traps

Currently, the calculation is that these flows lasted a brief 200,000 years in the Permain and raised the temperature of the planet by 5 degrees. If the flow lasted just 100,000 years, then the temperature would be closer to 10 degrees. It also contributed to a poisoning of the planet. When this flow occured, 96% of all marine species (like trilobites) disappear from the fossil record. Never to be seen in higher levels again.

But there is much more! The Greenland lava fields, partly under the Greenland ice sheet are now estimated to be 10 million cubic kilometers!   Yes, that is equivalent to a Mt. St Helens blowing up every day for 10 million days.

http://www.sciencema...ry/316/5824/527

We put all these flows together from Krakatoa to New Mexico to the Hawaiin Islands, and we are reaching towards 100 million cubic kilometers of lava.

That is 100 Mt. St Helens every day for a million days in a row.

Now, you want to pour all of this out of your bottle in 1000 years or so? If all this came out in just 1 million years, life could not survive on the planet. I say, you can't do it. Your theory doesn't work. These are the ideas that convinced the scientists of the 19th century that a young earth theory could not work.

View Post


Your example here shows just how much one volcanic eruption can spew out. Now since evolutionists believe that the eruptions of volcanoes created our atmosphere. How many would you say it would take to do that? Several thousands? maybe a million?

The point I'm trying to make is that the geologic column should support a volcanic age with layers of just volcanic ash. Where are those layers? The sea floor itself may recycle it, but the land does not. So where is the proof of this atmosphere creation from volcanic eruptions?

Because to make a 7 mile high atmosphere to surround this whole planet. That would translate into a lot of volcanic eruptions.

No one since has shown that such a young earth theory can work. But if you think you can do it, you are welcome to show your math. But you can't just make a claim that it can be done. You must show it.


I have yet to see evolution shown to where I could "see" it.
I have yet to see the evidence for atmosphere creation through volcanic eruption.
I have yet to see matter and liquid get compressed to the size of a dot on a page. Just compress the oceans into a dot on this page and you will convince me. But you cannot.
I have yet to have answered which came first: Water, oxygen, or plants? Each one requires the other in order to exist or be made. But only one can be first.
I have yet to see which fish "we" evolved from since the gill slit theory is making a come back. And also why not take a human fetus at the gill slit stage and prove that it is gill slits? It is because it is not true.

Etc....

You cannot answer one of these questions to an extent in which you require us to answer your's. So what we have is a double standard. Because you want what you cannot even supply from what you believe. And if you can supply it, I'm all ears.

#29 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 October 2007 - 08:52 AM

I have just read an article entitled "The Rapid Ascent of Basalt Magmas." by Dr. Andrew Snelling ...

The article then concluded that it could be possible that the ocean floor ruptured into plates and through runaway subduction cause large mantle plumes and fast melting of rock beneath the mid-ocean rift zones.  This "catastrophic plate tectonics" during the Flood could be a practical answer to th basalt flows of the earth's rock record.

Bob Barclay

View Post



I found your 1 page article (Here is a link that works http://www.icr.org/article/3394/). As you are probably aware, there are 1000s of papers and 100s of researchers trying to put this puzzle together. I don't know of any scientist, that would presume that they could put the puzzle together any a completely different way by making one calculation.

Imagine you were putting a 10,000 piece puzzle together and got 9000 pieces together and could see it was going to be a beautiful sunset picture. Now someone else comes in and tells you your picture is all wrong. They claim it is a picture of a poodle on a couch. The evidence is that they have found a piece that could go in a different place.

Wouldn't you require that they show that they can put the pieces together? Is one ambiguous piece enough to argue that the puzzle can make a completely new picture?

For example, the article doesn't discuss the world wide impact of 20 million cubic kilometers of eruption in a single year (Deccan, Siberian and Greenland basalts) when there is evidence that just 15 cubic kilometers can poison a significant portion of the earth and have an effect on the climate. It does not explain the sedimentary layers between the flows (full of evidence that plant life had a chance to grow for many years).

And the simplest test of all is that when lava hits water it creates a very characteristic type of flow called a pillow lava. Where the edges of the flow hit the seas, you do see this type of lava, but the vast majority does not show this form, arguing that these large flows were not underwater when they erupted.

#30 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:39 AM

I found your 1 page article (Here is a link that works http://www.icr.org/article/3394/). As you are probably aware, there are 1000s of papers and 100s of researchers trying to put this puzzle together. I don't know of any scientist, that would presume that they could put the puzzle together any a completely different way by making one calculation.

Imagine you were putting a 10,000 piece puzzle together and got 9000 pieces together and could see it was going to be a beautiful sunset picture. Now someone else comes in and tells you your picture is all wrong. They claim it is a picture of a poodle on a couch. The evidence is that they have found a piece that could go in a different place.

Wouldn't you require that they show that they can put the pieces together? Is one ambiguous piece enough to argue that the puzzle can make a completely new picture?

For example, the article doesn't discuss the world wide impact of 20 million cubic kilometers of eruption in a single year (Deccan, Siberian and Greenland basalts) when there is evidence that just 15 cubic kilometers can poison a significant portion of the earth and have an effect on the climate. It does not explain the sedimentary layers between the flows (full of evidence that plant life had a chance to grow for many years).

And the simplest test of all is that when lava hits water it creates a very characteristic type of flow called a pillow lava. Where the edges of the flow hit the seas, you do see this type of lava, but the vast majority does not show this form, arguing that these large flows were not underwater when they erupted.

View Post


So you are disregarding this piece of the puzzle because it does not fit your beliefs that is convenient. You ask us to provide a plausible answer but then discard it because many other papers have been written and we have to sort out the issue. Then we are told your data it does fit our beliefs so it is not acceptable.

As far as scientists not making claims of solving a situation I agree; however, evolution do it all the time. Just read some of the material Dawkins writes.

It is hard to imagine the cataclysmic destruction the Flood produced. What I read I fit and I believe it to be plausible answer.

By the way the ICR website has many other papers on this subject.

Bob Barclay

#31 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 October 2007 - 11:54 AM

So you are disregarding this piece of the puzzle because it does not fit your beliefs that is convenient.

View Post


Quite the opposite. All pieces of the puzzle are important. All data is relevant unless it can be demonstrated that there was an error in collection. The speed of the lava is relevant, the type of lava, the amount of lava, the effects of the lava, the biochemical effects, the magnetic fields of the lava, etc etc. Graduate students across the country are constantly looking for anything that does not fit the current theory. Faculty get tenure at major universities by changing ideas - developing new theories. Many creationists seem to think promotion is given to those that support old ideas, but that is very far from accurate. This is why science advances: because reward goes to those that can upset the current theory. But it is very hard work to show that a new theory is consistent with all of the known evidence.

If one piece of the puzzle is found to be in error, or is ambiguous, then one may need to re-evaluate that part of the puzzle. But to make a conclusion that the whole picture is utterly different, is unwarranted without serious efforts at building a new theory (a new picture) that is consistent with the known data.

So can I ask you an honest question? Did you read that paper and see how his conclusions followed? Did it demonstrate to you that all the basalts of the world could be layed down in a year? Do you think any geologist would be persuaded by the logic of that paper? I really am interested how a young earth creationist evaluates papers like that one.

Thanks,
James

#32 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 17 October 2007 - 01:46 PM

james,

I might check out that book, it seems like an interesting subject.

I think your analogy of a "jig saw" puzzle is really inaccurate. Certainly it's a puzzle, but nothing close to a jigsaw puzzle. A jigsaw puzzle has little pieces that fit perfectly to only 2-4 other specific pieces. This puzzle has Millions of little pieces that must all fit together. And by "fit together" isn't similiar to the way a jig saw puzzle fits together. One piece of evidence or one discovered fact, can fit several different theories.

Also there is no real picture to compare to a puppy sitting on a couch. The pictures that we generate by looking at these facts is a very vague and inacurate description of what really occured in history.

If anything the picture more resembles an ink blot.

#33 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 05 November 2007 - 05:20 PM

Your example here shows just how much one volcanic eruption can spew out.

View Post


Well, there were many many many eruptions over hundreds of millions of years with sedimentary layers between them. Most geologic columns show evidence of these world wide effects and many resulted in world-wide extinctions. Such eruptions release a great deal of poisonous gases. When the Siberian traps were layed down, 96% of all species across the planet vanished (the great Permian extinction). All those trilobites, for example, were never seen in higher layers ever again.



Now since evolutionists believe that the eruptions of volcanoes created our atmosphere. How many would you say it would take to do that? Several thousands? maybe a million?

View Post


Not sure where you heard this. Most every planet that is large enough has an atmosphere. Gases are lighter thatn earth so they usually go up, but if they are not too light, they can be maintained by gravity. You don't need a volcano. Most planets larger than mercury have an atmosphere. Now there is evidence of planets with atmospheres outside our solar system. Here is a good link to see the current theory of the formation and history of earth's atmosphere.
http://www.ux1.eiu.e...mos_origin.html

The point I'm trying to make is that the geologic column should support a volcanic age with layers of just volcanic ash. Where are those layers?

View Post


It is found all over the earth. Most places you dig down you will find it. Here are some pictures of the flows around the Columbia River in Washington.
Posted Image
This one-kilometer-thick section of the Columbia River Flood basalts is well-exposed in the Snake River Canyon near the Washington-Oregon-Idaho tri-state area. The prominent bench about halfway up the section marks the boundary between the Imnaha basalts and the overlying Grande Ronde basalts. The voluminous CRB sequence erupted from fissures in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington from 17 to 6 million years ago. However, about 90% of the total basalt volume erupted between 17 and 14 million years ago.

1.I have yet to see evolution shown to where I could "see" it.
2. I have yet to see the evidence for atmosphere creation through volcanic eruption.
3. I have yet to see matter and liquid get compressed to the size of a dot on a page. Just compress the oceans into a dot on this page and you will convince me. But you cannot.
4. I have yet to have answered which came first: Water, oxygen, or plants? Each one requires the other in order to exist or be made. But only one can be first.
5. I have yet to see which fish "we" evolved from since the gill slit theory is making a come back. And also why not take a human fetus at the gill slit stage and prove that it is gill slits? It is because it is not true.

Etc....

You cannot answer one of these questions to an extent in which you require us to answer your's. So what we have is a double standard. Because you want what you cannot even supply from what you believe. And if you can supply it, I'm all ears.

View Post


I have numbered your questions to make them easier to answer. I hope you don't mind. I am willing to discuss any of these answers in more detail.

1. Evolutionary theory suggests that it can take from several thousand years to several million years for there to be enough microevolutionary changes to add up to create a species change. So yes, you are not likely to "see it" in your lifetime if you are looking for species changes. However, there are a number of things you are not likely to "see" in your lifetime. Seems odd to make this a restriction. You seem to accept the Ark without any evidence at all for that.

2. You might want to read that link I have on the 'evolution' of the early atmosphere to see what scientists propose. We can discuss the evidence for that theory if you would like.

3. There is lots of evidence not for black holes. Again, do you need to get up close and personal before you would accept they exist? That would be rather dangerous. Do creationists doubt black holes exist?

4. The order was water, then plants (which generate oxygen), then oxygen. Read that link I gave and we discuss the evidence if you like.

5. There are several theories regarding which "fish" we evolved from. If you want to go to the Cambrian, probably the most popular theory is Phikaia which is one of the earliest animals in the vertebrate line (there were no vertebrates yet in these layers - in fact, no bones have ever been found in Cambrian or lower layers). Phikaia looked something like this.

Posted Image

You can read about this here if you like
http://www.marineree....php?reportid=5

The other possibility is the conondont line which is the other pre-vertebrate found in these very deep layers.

Hope that helps you understand what scientists currently believe.

James

#34 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:55 AM

I don't understand what you think is "not true". At the beginning of the 19th century, probably the majority of scientists believed in some sort of flood theory. By the time of Darwin, most scientists had moved away from young earth notions. Today, the fraction believing a young earth is tiny. Do you think that it is growing?

Your initial comment was something to the effect of, '19th Century Geologists attempted to make a young earth model work, and they failed...' That was what I disagreed with. All throughout the 19th Century,1874 was the latest I could find, there were Biblical geologists publishing material defending a young earth interpretation of the geologic record. To claim that they couldn't produce a coherent theory is inaccurate. Although I dispute why the paradigm shift occurred and what it means, I never disputed that Uniformitarianism became the predominant theory.

Do you really want to use the Scabland's of eastern Washington as evidence of a young earth?

Yes, for two reasons. It gives us an analogue for some of the processes that may have been active during the Genesis flood. And it vindicated what Biblical Geologists had been saying for 150 years. Mainly that catastrophic events can rearrange the geology in a powerful way. Before J. Harlen Bretz' work was accepted this idea was very much scoffed at.

...underneath the scabland is several thousand feet of alternating lava flows and sediment. The top of the scabland geologic column is a truely massive flood basalt (a lava flow) that covered most of Washington and Oregon. Given the types of lava and the size of the flow, it is estimated that it took 10 to 15 million years to lay that down...So you want all these lava flows with alternating sedimentary layers to be layed down before the flood that caused the Scabland?

Most likely, and it's not as unrealistic as you make it sound. There are many features of the CRBG that you are either ignoring, or are unaware of. For example, there is evidence of subaqueous extrusion from the existence of pillow lava complexes.
Posted Image
Source
I know you're aware of these structures but what I find most interesting is their occurrence is so common, particularly in the formations we're concerned with.
"Pillow lava-palagonite complexes are widespread along the margins of the Columbia River basalt … . Such foreset bedded breccias and associated pillow lava complexes are found at hundreds of localities along the margins of the Columbia River basalt … "
-Waters, A.C., Determining direction of flow in basalts, American J. Science 258-A:361–362, 1960

Even Wikipedia's entry on pillow lava complexes says they're common for many volcanically active spots all around the world. Your major issue with a flood scenario has been that many layers don't appear to be "flood like". Yet a major indicator of underwater extrusion is ever present in those layers. This seems entirely consistent with a flood.

The same is true of Palagonite, which is the product of a reaction between water and lava.
Posted Image
It's found in exact same outcrops as pillow lava, which would indicate the presence of water during extrusion.

What does a catastrophic explanation look like? There have been several papers presented that lay out a detailed scenario for the CRBG being emplaced very rapidly during the concluding stages of the flood. I'll try to find some of these on the internet in the next few days to better explain it. For starters have a look as Dr. Tas Walker's model. All the articles I've found use that model as the time their time scale.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users