Jump to content


Photo

Yec Chronology Vs. Old Earth


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

#21 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 30 August 2010 - 04:01 PM

Two examples out of hundreds: First, continental drift. Evidence shows that the continents were recently (in geological terms) united in one supercontinent, Pangea. I believe creationists accept this. The only way for the continents to have gotten from there to the positions they're at now is by observed continental drift , which occurs at a few centimeters a year. That rate can never have been significantly faster without causing enormous earthquakes, and there's no way they could have been created by a flood.


Yes the Bible supports the concept behind 'Pangea' or a single landmass as having once existed (see Genesis 1: 9).

Second: Ice cores rings. These rings are layers laid down each year by snowfall. There's no way they could be produced by, or even survive, a global flood. These layers easily go back hundreds of thousands of years.


The Ice Age didn't predate the flood. No creationist believes it did. Secondly your statement ''these layers go back hundreds of thousands of years'' is just another statement of your faith.

Creation scientist Michael Oard (PhD) has published a book detailing the scientific evidence that shows the ice age was caused by the climatic upheaval of the Genesis Flood:

http://creationwiki....e_Genesis_Flood

I'm not talking about the speed of light. I'm talking about the life cycles of stars. The sun is about 5 billion years old, and has about as much life left. We've seen starts at all points in their life cycle, from red giants which need to be at least 8 or 9 billion years old, to young stars only a few hundred million years old. Were they created that way, to look much older than they actually are?


The life cycle of stars is only a few thousand years, not billions or millions.

See my old thread:
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3572

Tree rings can go back up to 10,000 years. There's no evidence of an enormous flood. In fact, such a flood would destroy those trees.


The 10,000 year figure is assumption, based on the assumption of only certain rings per year. As scott said - bogus.

Do you know how big the universe is? There are four hundred billion stars in this galaxy alone.


And that's what the Bible says. The Bible frequently describes the great number of stars in the heavens (see Genesis 22: 17; Jeremiah 33:22)

Right, because humans are never mistaken. Oh wait, except you just made a big post about how humans are mistaken. And these are modern scientists working with modern technology, not primitive tribes who think the sun is a chariot flown by a god. If we're not trustworthy, why are they?


Ok this gives me an idea for a new thread. Looks like i can educate you there about ancient technologies. Ancient man was not primitive.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#22 nortonthe2nd

nortonthe2nd

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Oregon

Posted 30 August 2010 - 05:32 PM

I know refractive index is a formula, I should have referred to refractive velocity.

Of course the Theory of Relativity is wrong.  It's easily disproven because all matter given speed is constant within a Vacuum.  That's why spaceships can save fuel by shutting off their engines in space, and stay the same speed.  A partial vacuum.

Nope, it's not a silly claim at all.

View Post


Do you understand what the Theory of Relative actually is? You might want to read this before you say any more about it: http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity

Again, the GPS satellites prove that relativity is correct. If they werent designed to account for time dilation, they would become off by about 10 kilometers a day. Do you have an alternate theory that can account for that?

#23 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 05:45 PM

Do you understand what the Theory of Relative actually is? You might want to read this before you say any more about it: http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity

Again, the GPS satellites prove that relativity is correct. If they werent designed to account for time dilation, they would become off by about 10 kilometers a day. Do you have an alternate theory that can account for that?

View Post


Yes the speed of light is constant within a vacuum!!! Absolutely correct!

GPS has to be corrected by time dialation, because light actually slows down outside of a vacuum.

Also, the speed of a baseball thrown in a Vacuum will be constant!!! Of course I will have to take into account of time dialation via gravity, because it slows down outside of a vacuum as well.

The fact is that speed inside of a Vacuum is never relevant, because if you throw any object, or pass light through a vacuum it will remain constant. Scientist have long recognized that Lightspeed slows down when passing through a material, or travels outside a vacuum... simply because it has to react to other matter it comes in contact with.

#24 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 06:10 PM

Yes the speed of light is constant within a vacuum!!! Absolutely correct!

GPS has to be corrected by time dialation, because light actually slows down outside of a vacuum.

Also, the speed of a baseball thrown in a Vacuum will be constant!!!  Of course I will have to take into account of time dialation via gravity, because it slows down outside of a vacuum as well.

The fact is that speed inside of a Vacuum is never relevant, because if you throw any object, or pass light through a vacuum it will remain constant.  Scientist have long recognized that Lightspeed slows down when passing through a material, or travels outside a vacuum... simply because it has to react to other matter it comes in contact with.

View Post

If it isn't relevant then why did you make a point to claim that scientists assume the speed of light is constant?

#25 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 06:33 PM

If it isn't relevant then why did you make a point to claim that scientists assume the speed of light is constant?

View Post



I made a point that they assume that Light speed will remain constant when determing Starlight/long distances. They forget that space is not true a Vacuum, speed will only remain constant for a certain period of time before it is affected by matter, and gravity.

" The results of special relativity hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influence of gravitational fields on the phenomena" - Albert Einstein.

Therefore their calculations of 186,000 miles per second would be incorrect, because the light would no longer be traveling through a vacuum. So, they assume using the constant (Vacuum speed) that light will remain constant.

We do know that nuclear reactors will charge particles faster than the speed of light, and we also know that the sun itself, and other large stars contain rather large amounts of electromagnetic radiation. They may also be charging the electromagnetic radiation ( light ) to faster than 186,000 miles per second of the safe condition Vacuum.

With the available knowledge we know that since light can speed up, and slow down outside of a Vacuum... then we cannot be for sure what the true distance of stars are given the speed of light in a Vacuum.

So the reason why using Lightspeeds constant within a Vacuum is irrevelant, is because so is a baseball that is thrown through a vacuum. Sure we could make many different formula's to correct the baseballs speed outside of a vacuum just like light... but it would be irrevelant because those are not real world conditions that contain matter/gravity.

#26 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 30 August 2010 - 07:14 PM

I made a point that they assume that Light speed will remain constant when determing Starlight/long distances.  They forget that space is not true a Vacuum, speed will only remain constant for a certain period of time before it is affected by matter, and gravity.

" The results of special relativity hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influence of gravitational fields on the phenomena" - Albert Einstein.

Therefore their calculations of 186,000 miles per second would be incorrect, because the light would no longer be traveling through a vacuum.  So, they assume using the constant (Vacuum speed) that light will remain constant.

We do know that nuclear reactors will charge particles faster than the speed of light, and we also know that the sun itself, and other large stars contain rather large amounts of electromagnetic radiation.  They may also be charging the electromagnetic radiation ( light ) to faster than 186,000 miles per second of the safe condition Vacuum.

With the available knowledge we know that since light can speed up, and slow down outside of a Vacuum... then we cannot be for sure what the true distance of stars are given the speed of light in a Vacuum.

So the reason why using Lightspeeds constant within a Vacuum is irrevelant, is because so is a baseball that is thrown through a vacuum.  Sure we could make many different formula's to correct the baseballs speed outside of a vacuum just like light... but it would be irrevelant because those are not real world conditions that contain matter/gravity.

View Post

Yeah, except using the speed of light isn't the only way to measure distance.

Can you explain how to calculate the distance of stars while still keeping the age of the universe under 10,000 years? I'll need to see your math.

Thanks!

#27 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 August 2010 - 07:46 PM

Yeah, except using the speed of light isn't the only way to measure distance.

Can you explain how to calculate the distance of stars while still keeping the age of the universe under 10,000 years? I'll need to see your math.

Thanks!

View Post


Yes, another way to measure star distance is to use the Pythagorean theorem, but there are problems with this.

You must have A, B, and C.

Point A: Where your standing.

Point B: A point of reference.

Point C: The Star.

If you don't know the distance of B, your point of reference, then you cannot complete the formula. Many Cosmologist make the mistake of assuming the reference point. We humans have traveled to the moon. You could use the moon as a reference point of an estimated 250,000 miles, but it would not be too reliable using the moon as a reference point outside the Galaxy. We have not traveled outside the galaxy.

As far as I know cosmologist use stars outside any known distances as reference points... then they claim they know the actual distance without performing the Pythagorean Theorem correctly: they assumed a reference point, which will only yeild an assumed distance.

To cover the distance from the earth to the moon in the Apollo 11, they covered that distance of about 250,000 miles in 3 days in 1969.

The record for traveling to the moon the fastest was 8 hours, 35 minutes by one of our modern probes from NASA. This was way more technically advanced than the ship used in 1969.

What I'm saying, is with the increases in technology... we may be proving that Star Distances aren't as far as we think. Moving distances from Millions of years, to less than 10,000.

#28 menes777

menes777

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wichita, KS

Posted 07 September 2010 - 11:39 AM

QUOTE(Harry @ Aug 30 2010, 07:14 PM)

Yes, another way to measure star distance is to use the Pythagorean theorem, but there are problems with this.

You must have A, B, and C.

Point A: Where your standing.

Point B: A point of reference.

Point C: The Star.

If you don't know the distance of B, your point of reference, then you cannot complete the formula. Many Cosmologist make the mistake of assuming the reference point. We humans have traveled to the moon. You could use the moon as a reference point of an estimated 250,000 miles, but it would not be too reliable using the moon as a reference point outside the Galaxy. We have not traveled outside the galaxy.

As far as I know cosmologist use stars outside any known distances as reference points... then they claim they know the actual distance without performing the Pythagorean Theorem correctly: they assumed a reference point, which will only yeild an assumed distance.

To cover the distance from the earth to the moon in the Apollo 11, they covered that distance of about 250,000 miles in 3 days in 1969.

The record for traveling to the moon the fastest was 8 hours, 35 minutes by one of our modern probes from NASA. This was way more technically advanced than the ship used in 1969.

What I'm saying, is with the increases in technology... we may be proving that Star Distances aren't as far as we think. Moving distances from Millions of years, to less than 10,000.

View Post


Except for no one uses Pythagoras to measure distances to the stars. It might seem like it's using the Pythagorean method but in reality it's using another.

You do also realize that no one (that was a true astronomer) has ever said all of the stars are all millions of LY away right? In fact Proxima Centauri is a little over 4 LY from earth. That's still over 23.5 trillion miles away, but far from millions of LY away.

Also here's some quick lessons on Parallax
http://hyperphysics....astro/para.html - My favorite
http://www.astronomy.../distances.html
http://www.windows2u.../star_dist.html

You can see even Parallax has it's limitations. Which makes sense if you think about it. The closer the object is to you the more it will move in relation to the objects behind it when you move. The farther the object is way the less noticeable that movement is. The same with the stars. The more a star moves in the night sky in relation the other stars behind it, the closer the object is. The less it moves the farther away it is. When you get to a certain point that movement is so tiny as to be indistinguishable from no movement at all. You don't need to know how far away the reference stars are. They are only there to be able to show the distance the object being measured has changed in relation to the observer.

Of course that limitation is based upon the distance of the earth from the sun and atmospheric disturbance. If you could put a stable measuring instrument out to the distance of something like Pluto you would definitely be able to measure more accurately and far greater distances.

If you want to see more measuring methods check this out.
http://en.wikipedia...._Distance_Scale

#29 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:06 PM

Appeal to authority and ad hominem.

Where is the physical evidence of a young earth?

View Post

Do you read?

#30 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 25 September 2010 - 08:22 PM

You're right. There is zero evidence for the universe being 4.5 billion years old. The universe is about 13.5 billion years old. It's the Earth which is 4.5 billion years old. The evidence for this includes, but is not limited to:

Decay of radioactive elements, both on the Earth and in meteorites
Observed geological and tectonic processes
Observed stellar processes
Observed biological processes, such as tree rings
The existence of craters on other planets
The speed of light
Cosmic Background Radiation
Fossils which make sense according to the Theory of Evolution, but not according to any other theory
The fact that we're an insignificantly tiny part of an unimaginably huge universe. Are we really supposed to be the main attraction?

View Post

Okay, what observed geological evidence? You mean like the 13 major water gaps on the Colorado Plateau? Not to mention dozens of slot canyons. Papers that can not explain why rivers would penetrate mountains, forming canyons thousands of feet deep. When they, in many cases, have lower elevations nearby. THe mystery being why these rivers stubbornly kept flowing through rising crust to cut these deep canyons, when there were more sensible (lower) routes available.

And standard tectonics? I'm sorry, but these unimaginably heavy plates have no mechanism to provide the energy needed to move them. Please tell me how they just keep pressing all this rock up and up.

Tectonics is the only barrier that protects the naturalistic mind from confronting the fact that water covered our continents. And what a VERY thin veneer--it's not even clever--if anyone takes the actual time to look at it's senseless mechanism.

We are told first it's the lava coming up from the oceanic ridges that creates new crust and causes this pressure. Now it's the weight of the subducting plate descending that pulls unimaginable tonnage behind it--this is what moves the plates. Lava is going to form upward, and push down--it's not going to fold rock thousands of miles away. Or if it's the subducting plate pulling :lol:, it's descending into the earth--how does a descending plate build a mountain??? This is absolutely the limpest excuse of a hypothesis that I've ever heard. :(

Cosmic background radiation? That's a problem for you my friend, because it shouldn't be so unifrom throghout the universe.

Fossils? Please--your weakest evidence. Dinosaur bones in calcerous sediments--how? Did the dinsaurs fall in your coral reefs and wait for them to disentegrate and cover them. Marine fossils on the top of mountains? Soft bodied ichnofossils, and many other evidences of catastrophic burial? Are you going to ask for special pleading for the many fossil graveyards with mixed organisms--land and marine--throughout the earth? Please. <_<

DId you forget the mysterious cambrian deposits that contain chordates and sponges in the same setting? Where's the evidence of evolution in these fossils? Not too much different than a modern setting --minus the extinctions. And some of these deposits are found in hills (i.e. China) and LIMESTONE mountains (i.e. Canadian Rockies) in shale!! Hello!

#31 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:25 PM

I don't have anything to add right now, but I love your threads Cassiterides. :lol: It seems you and I both have a high level of interest in History and Bible Chronology.

Just recieved Ussher's The Annals of the World today. There are two editions, the one i got was the special edition pull-out hardback (960 pages) with a CDROM. The book is a modern English translation of Ussher's 17th century original ''Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world'').

Posted Image

Ussher dated creation to 4004BC (Masoretic). Other notable authorities who dated creation with the Masoretic around the same figure:

4192 BC - Marianus Scotus
4060 BC - Isaac Newton
4051 BC- Henri Spondanus
4002 BC - Augustin Calmet
3992 BC - Johannes Kepler
3984 BC - Petavius
3966 BC - Christen Longomontanus 
3964 BC  - Melanchthon
3951 BC - Martin Luther
3952 BC - Venerable Bede
3949 BC - Joseph Justus Scaliger
3761 BC - Hebrew  Calander
3751 BC - Seder Olam Rabbah
3616 BC - Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller

The last three figures above come from Jewish sources. The Hebrew or Jewish Calander* within Judaism dates creation to 3761 BC, the 2nd century AD Jewish chronicle 'Seder Olam Rabbah' to 3751BC and the earliest recorded date of creation comes from Rabbi Lipmann (d. 1654).

*Note: 3924 BC is usually given as the revised Jewish Calander date of creation.

The Septuagint (LXX) gives slightly different dates, but still supports Young Earth Creation and dates creation mostly around 5,500BC:

6984 BC - King Alfonso X of Castile
5592 BC- Clement of Alexandria
5586 BC - Septuagint (LXX)
5600 BC -  Augustine of Hippo
5555 BC - Josephus
5509 BC - Byzantine Calander
5501 BC - Julius Africanus
5500 BC - Hippolytus
5492 BC - George Syncellus
5493 BC - Ethiopian Church
5490 BC - Early Syrian Church
5311 BC - William Hales
5270 BC - Septuagint (LXX) Vatican
5228 BC - Early British Church
5199 BC - Eusebius
5199 BC - Pope Gregory XIII
5199 BC - María de Ágreda

There is also the Samaritan date of creation, at 4305BC (other Samaratin sources provide a closer figure to 4000BC). Apparently the ancient Mayans also gave a young age for creation, their calander only began in the 4th millenium BC.

Difference in age of creation to the flood:

Hebrew: 1,656 years
Samaritan: 1,307 years
Septuagint: 2,242 years

Masoretic (Hebrew):

Adam  -- 130
Seth  -- 105
Enos  -- 90
Cainan -- 70
Maleleel  -- 65
Jared  -- 162
Enoch --  65
Mathusela  --187
Lamech  -- 182
Noah  -- 600
----------------------
To the Deluge: 1656 years

The date Flood is derived using the genealogical lists provided in Genesis 5, and 7, called the ''generations of Adam''.

James Ussher's dating in his World Annals:

4004 BC - Creation
2348 BC - Noah's Flood
1921 BC - God's call to Abraham
1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt
1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
586 BC -  Babylonian Captivity

Most of the above dates are accepted by non-religious scholars, since it is now an accepted fact abraham existed around 2000BC, the Babylonian Captivity is also accepted to have occured in 586BC (other place it 588BC).

And the above took me a long time to type out. <_<

Now where did old earth age estimates come from?

There is a direct link to old earth estimates and atheism. It all started with men who began to reject the Bible and proclaim themselves as 'naturalists' like Georges Comte de Buffon in the 18th century.

Comte de Buffon estimated the earth to be 78,000 years old. By the 19th century, men like Charles Lyell had added hundreds of thousands (and later millions) to this figure, this theory of an old earth or universe became known as ''deep time''.

However all the adherents of ''deep time'' and an old aged earth were charlatan geologists or uneducated scientists. Charles Lyell for example had no science or geology education but was a lawyer by trade, James Hutton was a docter and even admitted having no science education.

William Smith who produced one of the earliest maps of geology in Uk, attributed rocks as being millions of years old. However there was a problem well adressed at his time, Smith was unemployed with no education in geology or science whatsoever. John Playfair, who alongside Hutton founded the theory of ''deep time'' was not a geologist or a scientist, his only training and education was in maths. Therefore the men who invented great ages for the earth, were indeed poorly educated charlatans  (con-men who tricked others into thinking they knew more than they did ) or fraudsters.

Research has also revealed, that all these men were atheists, or in some way connected to attacking the Bible. In fact Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda is now well known — he wanted to ''free science “from Moses''. You can read more about this on the link below:

http://creation.com/...ence-from-moses

What followed these conmen in the 19th century, was greater ages being added to their ''deep time'' and old earth theories. In the early 20th century Arthur Holmes claimed the earth was 1.6 Billion years, this figure grew to 3 Billion, then now to 4.5 Billion years old, while the universe stated to be billions of years older.

So what do you want to go with?

I stick with what the Bible says and from what from honest historians and chroniclers calculated hundreds of years ago. :(

View Post



#32 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:29 PM

:) Do you have book recommendations on these topics? Have you read about the plate tectonic theories related to the flood? TY

Okay, what observed geological evidence? You mean like the 13 major water gaps on the Colorado Plateau? Not to mention dozens of slot canyons.  Papers that can not explain why rivers would penetrate mountains, forming canyons thousands of feet deep.  When they, in many cases, have lower elevations nearby.  THe mystery being why these rivers stubbornly kept flowing  through rising crust to cut these deep canyons, when there were more sensible (lower) routes available. 

And standard tectonics?  I'm sorry, but these unimaginably heavy plates have no mechanism to provide the energy needed to move them.  Please tell me how they just keep pressing all this rock up and up. 

Tectonics is the only barrier that protects the naturalistic mind from confronting the fact that water covered our continents.  And what a VERY thin veneer--it's not even clever--if anyone takes the actual time to look at it's senseless mechanism.

We are told first it's the lava coming up from the oceanic ridges that creates new crust and causes this pressure.  Now it's the weight of the subducting plate descending that pulls unimaginable tonnage behind it--this is what moves the plates.  Lava is going to form upward, and push down--it's not going to fold rock thousands of miles away.  Or if it's the subducting plate pulling  :lol:, it's descending into the earth--how does a descending plate build a mountain???  This is absolutely the limpest excuse of a hypothesis that I've ever heard. :(

Cosmic background radiation?  That's a problem for you my friend, because it shouldn't be so unifrom throghout the universe.

Fossils?  Please--your weakest evidence.  Dinosaur bones in calcerous sediments--how?  Did the dinsaurs fall in your coral reefs and wait for them to disentegrate and cover them.  Marine fossils on the top of mountains?  Soft bodied ichnofossils, and many other evidences of catastrophic burial?  Are you going to ask for special pleading for the many fossil graveyards with mixed organisms--land and marine--throughout the earth?  Please. <_<

DId you forget the mysterious cambrian deposits that contain chordates and sponges in the same setting?  Where's the evidence of evolution in these fossils?  Not too much different than a modern setting --minus the extinctions.  And some of these deposits are found in hills (i.e. China) and LIMESTONE mountains (i.e. Canadian Rockies) in shale!! Hello!

View Post



#33 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 26 September 2010 - 03:24 PM

<_< Do you have book recommendations on these topics? Have you read about the plate tectonic theories related to the flood? TY

View Post

Mamael,

I just read a paper from Oard that explains the 13 major water gaps of Colorado Plateau, not including the GC--but you have to be a member.

The Origin of Grand Canyon
Part III: A Geomorphological Problem
Michael J. Oard

CRS Quarterly Summer Issue pp.45

http://www.creationr...47/47_1/toc.htm

As far as standard tectonics, I believe there is plate motion. Creationists acknowledge this. However the current mechanism of etiher push by the weight of forming basalt in the oceanic ridges, or the pull of plates descending in trenches can not, in my very humble opinion cause continental mountains. Therefore it can not be a viable explanation as to why there are continental sediments which are only formed underwater (limestone, shale, etc.) continental marine fossils, fossils found in water caused sediments, water and wind gaps that do not conveniently fit the old earth model.

Tectonic plate movement is touted as the cause of orogeny (mountain building). I'm not an expert but I don't buy it--How would plates that are rubbing against other plates and made up of untold mega tons of rock all move enough to bend rock--and why does surficial rock bend? If the mountains are a result of this slow pressure of tectonics, why are they not rather complelely "faulted up?" Many of them are slow bending anticlines or the result of tilted or contorted strata.

I don't have a book on it but articles by Austin, Snelling, or Baumgardner are good. At least catastrophic plate tectonics has a powerful mechanism which reduces the friction problem that standard slow tectonics has.

http://www.youtube.c...ex=0&playnext=1

#34 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 15 October 2010 - 05:54 AM

Okay, what observed geological evidence? You mean like the 13 major water gaps on the Colorado Plateau?   Not to mention dozens of slot canyons.  Papers that can not explain why rivers would penetrate mountains, forming canyons thousands of feet deep.  When they, in many cases, have lower elevations nearby.  THe mystery being why these rivers stubbornly kept flowing  through rising crust to cut these deep canyons, when there were more sensible (lower) routes available. 

And standard tectonics?  I'm sorry, but these unimaginably heavy plates have no mechanism to provide the energy needed to move them.  Please tell me how they just keep pressing all this rock up and up. 

Tectonics is the only barrier that protects the naturalistic mind from confronting the fact that water covered our continents.  And what a VERY thin veneer--it's not even clever--if anyone takes the actual time to look at it's senseless mechanism.

We are told first it's the lava coming up from the oceanic ridges that creates new crust and causes this pressure.  Now it's the weight of the subducting plate descending that pulls unimaginable tonnage behind it--this is what moves the plates.  Lava is going to form upward, and push down--it's not going to fold rock thousands of miles away.  Or if it's the subducting plate pulling  :D, it's descending into the earth--how does a descending plate build a mountain???  This is absolutely the limpest excuse of a hypothesis that I've ever heard. :)

Cosmic background radiation?  That's a problem for you my friend, because it shouldn't be so unifrom throghout the universe.

Fossils?  Please--your weakest evidence.  Dinosaur bones in calcerous sediments--how?  Did the dinsaurs fall in your coral reefs and wait for them to disentegrate and cover them.  Marine fossils on the top of mountains?  Soft bodied ichnofossils, and many other evidences of catastrophic burial?  Are you going to ask for special pleading for the many fossil graveyards with mixed organisms--land and marine--throughout the earth?  Please. :)

DId you forget the mysterious cambrian deposits that contain chordates and sponges in the same setting?  Where's the evidence of evolution in these fossils?  Not too much different than a modern setting --minus the extinctions.  And some of these deposits are found in hills (i.e. China) and LIMESTONE mountains (i.e. Canadian Rockies) in shale!! Hello!

View Post


Entrenched river systems don't penetrate mountains. They erode downward to a greater degree than the erosive elements that cause them to meander through the landscape in which they are found. Of course there are lower elevations, that is why they flow at all. There is a lower base level. But a river will not accommodate itself to a lower nearby elevation if it has constraints along its banks such as being in a canyon, or when natural levees exist. Water seeks a lower course, and the entrenched river may not follow what you consider a sensible course, but it is the one dictated by the physical laws involved.

I don't see tectonics as the only thing preventing a rational mind from not accepting a world-wide flood. They are many, many lines of evidence in addition that provide this.

The reasons for the movement of tectonic plates are still a topic of study with various mechanisms postulated. The density differences between crustal plates and the denser mantle has been cited for decades. In essence they float. Like a massively heavy boat that would be hard to move if dry-docked but relatively easy when afloat, the plates can move when currents are available. The convection model has also been considered for decades. I think of it sort of like a very balanced semi-rigid carpet of material riding on the "rollers" of the more plastic but denser asthenosphere. The subducting plate might provide much less energy in its "pull" but that can be enough to aid movement. It might be like you or me walking on ball bearings. A little push from somebody might make us move. If it is limp to you this may come from your lack of understanding of the principles involved.

I am not really aware of many finds of dinosaur bones in calcareous sediments, unless you are counting calcareous cements in sandstones. I know of none found in reefal limestones, but vertebrate paleontology is not something I have studied much. Marine dinosaurs might be associated with limestone’s. I think the only reference I have seen to limestone’s and dinosaurs are tracks, and they are not bones. It is very logical to find marine fossils in rocks at the tops of mountains, as they are at the top of Mt. Everest. The science of geology does not have to work very hard to explain this through tectonic theories. I have seen fossil assemblages in growth positions in limestone strata at the tops of hills and mountains. There are no such things as "soft-bodied ichnofossils" by definition, and they are poorer evidence of any rapid burial than many other fossils. In fact they might be some of the easiest to explain using a very slow burial. Concentrated layers of fossils are found in the rock record, and we see concentrations of bones and other material that can become fossils through time in the modern world. I have seen photos of stacks of carcasses of farm animals from modern flooding events. Some of these flooding events are near coastlines and bones from these would natural be found with marine forms. No special pleading needed at all. We see major floods now, they must have occurred in the past.

I don't see conflict in finding chordates and sponges in Cambrian deposits. Why is there mystery involved here? Sorry, I really don't get your point on this one. No, Cambrian deposits of this sort would be vastly different than the life found in a modern setting. Cambrian fossils found in hills, in limestone mountains, and in shale? Again I don't see a point being made.

#35 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 October 2010 - 07:27 AM

Mamael,

I just read a paper from Oard that explains the 13 major water gaps of Colorado Plateau, not including the GC--but you have to be a member. 

View Post

Thanks. I have read some on catastrophic plate tectonics. Fascinating.


If it is limp to you this may come from your lack of understanding of the principles involved.

View Post

When theories are on equal footing, I choose the explanation that fits the Bible the best.

Really, though, have you read the YE stuff? Catastrophic plate tectonics, geological models based on the flood, etc... IMO they are theories on the same level as the secular theories. No... actually they explain more. Secular science does not explain the cause of the ice age or the cause of many other things.

So there are fossils being made today of modern animals when there is flooding involved? :) Good to know.

Why did the marine animals fossilize on top of mountains? I understand that the mountains were once in the sea, but why did the animals fossilize? Not every animal that dies in the sea today or washes up on shore fossilizes.

#36 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:25 AM

Thanks. I have read some on catastrophic plate tectonics. Fascinating.
When theories are on equal footing, I choose the explanation that fits the Bible the best.

Really, though, have you read the YE stuff? Catastrophic plate tectonics, geological models based on the flood, etc... IMO they are theories on the same level as the secular theories. No... actually they explain more. Secular science does not explain the cause of the ice age or the cause of many other things.

So there are fossils being made today of modern animals when there is flooding involved? B) Good to know.

Why did the marine animals fossilize on top of mountains? I understand that the mountains were once in the sea, but why did the animals fossilize? Not every animal that dies in the sea today or washes up on shore fossilizes.

View Post


The problem is that the theories are not on equal footing. The regular run-of-the-mill theory of plate tectonics explains the evidence far better in terms of the structural configuration we find planet-wide and the associated depositional patterns. Yes, there are aspects that remain controversial and in debate, but they are founded in much better science. Since the Bible was never intended to be a science book in my opinion, and does not really address mountain-building or the configuration of the continents and sedimentation, the creationist musings on the subject do not fit the Bible any better than the integrated unifying plate tectonic theory...that although a work in progress, actually alllows geologists to predict the structure in the subsurface and the emplacement of oil and gas. The hodge podge of conflicting creationist views are worthless in this regard.

The ice ages (yes, there have been more than one) are explained in real scientific geology better than in any creationist idea I have seen. Yes, I have read quite a bit of YEC ideas on geology and found virtually all of them founded in misrepresentation of the studies done by non-creationist geologists, usually with absolutely no independent research or field work. Yes, Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling have done some work, but what I have seen of their studies have big holes that they ignore. If a theory does not take into account all the data, there is a problem. And no, despite the oft-told claim that non-creationist geologists disregard data that does not fit in with a prevailing theory, like sample age dates, is not true of most geologists and most studies. This is considered poor science and a breach of ethics.

Why did the marine animals fossilize on top of mountains? I understand that the mountains were once in the sea, but why did the animals fossilize? Not every animal that dies in the sea today or washes up on shore fossilizes.


They didn't fossilize on the mountains. The fossils were present in the strata before they were uplifted. No, they do not represent all the life that was present in the sea they lived and died within. But I have seen assemblages of unbroken fragile fossil corals on outcrops on the tops of mountains. They most certainly were not placed on the mountaintops by flood waters carrying them up thousands of feet. Animals dying today are in part on their way to being preserved as fossils.

The Himalayas are still rising today. This fits in with the a continuing collision aspect of plate tectonics, but creationist catastrophic plate tectonics do not explain the rather slow and continuing rise since there are no longer an "great fountains of the deep" or whatever forces are attributed to the flood to provide the force necessary.

#37 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 October 2010 - 08:50 AM

Just to clarify... this is friendly back and forth. I am relatively new to most Creation science, so freely admit that I am no expert.

They most certainly were not placed on the mountaintops by flood waters carrying them up thousands of feet.

View Post

That is not what the Creationist model suggests. I am wondering where you got this idea.

The Himalayas are still rising today. This fits in with the a continuing collision aspect of plate tectonics, but creationist catastrophic plate tectonics do not explain the rather slow and continuing rise since there are no longer an "great fountains of the deep" or whatever forces are attributed to the flood to provide the force necessary.

Am I correct in that the idea of the big bang or something similar starts out as a catastrophic process and then slowing yet continuing to expand the universe? If so, then why does this same model not apply to the movement of tectonic plates? I also seem to remember secular scientists saying that something catastrophic had to have started the continental separation.

#38 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 16 October 2010 - 07:40 AM

"They most certainly were not placed on the mountaintops by flood waters carrying them up thousands of feet."

That is not what the Creationist model suggests. I am wondering where you got this idea.


It has been claimed in threads on this very board that fossils found on tops of mountains were placed there by the flood. I see this as a common claim from creationists. You follow an alternative creationist concept that explains fossils on the tops of mountains?

"The Himalayas are still rising today. This fits in with the a continuing collision aspect of plate tectonics, but creationist catastrophic plate tectonics do not explain the rather slow and continuing rise since there are no longer an "great fountains of the deep" or whatever forces are attributed to the flood to provide the force necessary."

Am I correct in that the idea of the big bang or something similar starts out as a catastrophic process and then slowing yet continuing to expand the universe? If so, then why does this same model not apply to the movement of tectonic plates? I also seem to remember secular scientists saying that something catastrophic had to have started the continental separation. 


I see no real relationship between the "big bang" and plate tectonics. But astrophysics is not my field.

Personally I think an idea that collision with the some object early in earth history might have ejected enough crustal material to initiate plate tectonics to be intriguing. This material ejected would have become the moon.

Moon

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 October 2010 - 08:33 AM

It has been claimed in threads on this very board that fossils found on tops of mountains were placed there by the flood. I see this as a common claim from creationists. You follow an alternative creationist concept that explains fossils on the tops of mountains?

View Post


Perhaps there are some misunderstandings here--I don't think any informed creationist believes that ALL the mountains were pre-existant, so that the flood waters placed fossils on them. There are two different things at play here. They would be the nature and speed of the mountain area sedimentation, and tectonic uplift in orogeny.

As far as sedimentation, the fact that there are fossils anywhere (let alone mountains) should put the burden of proof on gradualists as to their origin. Slow sedimentation would not create ichnofossils, nor many other fossils. The fact that many fossillized body parts are found well preserved in the sedimentary record would also suggest turbid conditions at the time of burial, instead of calm continuous covering of the parts. If gradual build up was the case, then we should find many more whole skeletons.

If you want to argue from an "actualist" stance--that the fossil record is mixed with catastrphe and slow times, then I ask why are there common paleo indicators in the "same age" layers in the geologic record of North America? Why do they mostly show the same directions for the "same age" strata? Did water continually run over our continent for hundreds of millions of years in the same direction? I think not.

Secondly, as far as continuous tectonic uplift in orogeny. Where is the continuous pressure coming from to move the megatons of hardened rock? And what caused the unfaulted folds, synclines and anticlines in the mountains and hills? These things are near the surface, and not subject to heat. Furthermore, if they were lifted up from the under the surface, why are they not ALL metamorphic. Many of them are sedimentary in nature, and show no signs of heat being a factor in their folds. Folding while still wet is the only alternative--can you offer another?

That said, tectonics theory has no effective mechanism in orogeny, and it has little evidence of being a player of mountain building in the past.

Therefore, fossils in mountains, such as the Cambrian deposits in the Burgess shale in the Canadian Rockies, were covered underwater. No one says the mountains were already there. They (Candian Rockies) are full of limestone, which gives the possibility of massive pre-existant lime mud depostion during the flood cataclysm. From some of the limestone I have seen, I would expect to see much unpublicized (unfaulted) folding. I have not studied the actual layering situation underneath the Burgess Shale, but would like to find a research paper on it.

#40 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 October 2010 - 09:16 PM

It has been claimed in threads on this very board that fossils found on tops of mountains were placed there by the flood. I see this as a common claim from creationists. You follow an alternative creationist concept that explains fossils on the tops of mountains?

View Post

This is funny. I have to tell you a bit of my story. I was on a message board looking for science materials for my daughter (homeschooling remember) and called YEC materials laughable because I thought that I had a good idea what they were by what people on the board were saying. I was challenged by a YEC to actually read YEC materials. ;) Wow. I did and then I personally apologized to her. Of course, even when I was an "OEC" I believed in a worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago, so that helps. :P I just didn't have as much scientific explanation provided to me until I read the YEC materials.

The very first book that I read and every book thereafter that gives models of the flood says that the tops of mountains were once part of the ocean floor (the mountains weren't yet formed when the animals were fossilized). I therefore have to draw the conclusion that you have read very, very little on flood geology or YEC beliefs.

I have been trying to get enough sleep and brain power together to look at biblicalgeology.net and make some sense of it. Maybe when the kids are older and can sleep without my help. :( When I do though, I will be sure to discuss it here. :)

Oh, and don't worry, my daughter has lots of secular encyclopedias as a part of her education. I have not used any YEC materials with her... yet.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users