Jump to content


Photo

The Defeat Of Flood Geology By Flood Geology(?)

Flood Geology Young Earth

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

#81 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 04 August 2012 - 03:41 PM

Anyway, that's the theory, it fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence, but its my own theory and hasn't been developed much yet.


I feel, as one of the evolution side, I must tread very lightly not to offend.

Does't the "hasn't been developed much yet" in itself rather conflict with "it fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence".

After all, "God was behind it all" fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence, but is pretty much lacking in any detail of how God went about the job.

I think that as attempts to develop your theory progresses, you are subject to finding a lot of "doesn't fit and does contadict the known evidence.

Moose

#82 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 August 2012 - 05:40 PM

I feel, as one of the evolution side, I must tread very lightly not to offend.

Does't the "hasn't been developed much yet" in itself rather conflict with "it fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence".

After all, "God was behind it all" fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence, but is pretty much lacking in any detail of how God went about the job.

I think that as attempts to develop your theory progresses, you are subject to finding a lot of "doesn't fit and does contadict the known evidence.

Moose


The details are what everyone researching origins is seeking, and everyone has difficulty making all the evidence fit...so what is your point? Rather than adding to the conversation, you just seem to be announcing your skepticism against Christianity. We kind of guessed that when you signed up as an atheist. I would have liked to see you add some personal wisdom to the discussion, not just show up and say "nuh uh!" If you aren't here to build people up with knowledge then what are you here for? To waste everyone's time?

#83 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 05 August 2012 - 07:44 AM

Moose, Jay

Lou Said:
Hey Jay, why don't you address some of the errors in his ideas instead of putting him, down...I am new to the site, but I assume your here to educate especially if you yourself were a former atheist. From what I can tell he may be agnostic which is different... With respect to the creationist journey we al start somewhere, I was an avid evolutionist until I started looking at creation. So I have had many of the same ideas and leanings in the past myself.... As I am sure you have too.

Some comments to Moose from Lou:


You make some assumptions with what you have articulated.. Might I point out that the pre-flood fossil record given a wwFlood shows that animals of all kinds which live today lived then including dinos?

So for me the fossil record is like a snap shot of what GOD actually created, now that would be a given that the original creation was much larger than it is today with respect to species. It is not casual to say the Dinos, were there, mammals were there humans were there. the fact of the matter the whole diversity was there including insects, we see this in the fossil record and many of our fossil people have catalogued these and the number is huge.

Do you assume a long age in your formula?

GOD as the designer and creator and the progenitor of the DNA software that runs in the background of all animal life, which is totally unexplainable by any non-guided mechanism, even DNA experts as they dig into the mysteries of life have realize there is not enough time in an evolutionary form to account for development of the information contained in DNA, which the complexity of the systematics we have discovered in DNA runs totally counter to the Darwinian expectations. YOU certainly must know that. I have read article after article by non religious scientists form an evolutionary background that are now coming away with a "designer". To me this is huge, because this works with my own ideas that the bible is a historical document, and is reliable. I think men (flat earther’s) etc. have misinterpreted or even as some YEC brothers assumed certain hermeneutics and that are insistent on a point for view that “may” not be true. Ie, for example would be adaptive variation or even the floating mats theory.

So I am not trying to “make” you anything—I suggest to you that clearly the evidence does indeed show a Designer and creator as the basis for all life and the planet(s) no unguided mechanism could be responsible for this. I can share 5 or 6 good examples of lizard species that are found in different parts of the world. But these design features are found over and over and over in nature. Good design is used over and over—the wheel for instance on a bike, a plane, a wheel barrow, a car, etc. So if you get a hold of design, you can only conclude a designer.... For me design is evidence and convincing evidence given the design features I am aware of in the animal kingdom alone....

My point here is, there need not be any long time per se. Only because we have historical narrative which I believe is accurate. I think men are working hard to find out what it all says in context. Faith and hermeneutics are a very sticky place, for one such as yourself who has no obsession to or a profound sense of accountability to a creator, it is natural that you have the perspective you do. You see your self as a specie? Nothing special just a specie? That as you know is a big gulf between us....

The greatest scientists of old were indeed Christians who wanted to glorify God in there science and discover the secrets of how God did what he did.

So as a side note I am involved with reptiles and have studied lizards for over 40 years. Here is what I can share with you:


The Texas Horned lizard, the Gila Monster, the desert Collared lizard all have fossil records, as does the Tuatara, and many other diversity such as geckos in amber encased , and wall lizards, and others. All of these have a presence in the fossil record, what is interesting about that is not one of those animals have changed at all, and it is my contention that these are the same today as when originally created.....so I would be a “fixity of species” type person for good reasons which I can expand on later.

Moose said:

- Each type of fauna proliferates when conditions are suitable. The main variation in environmental conditions are :
1) Moisture content
2) Oxygen content in the air
3) Oxygen content in the oceans
4) Temperature
5) Air pressure
6) Magnetic fields (protection from solar winds)
7) Atmospheric strength (protection from solar winds)


Lou said:
It is an undeniable fact given good conditions all life responds to those conditions. That’s a fact, these things that you have above are part and parcel to “good life”.

However with respect to adaptation--no exterior condition can contribute change to DNA genetics. That is a fact, so if your referring to adaptation---this idea above I want to challenge you on. Animals have a max-min if you will and in certain circumstances if they are put beyond there own DNA design, they will go extinct. We know many of our diversity today are not found in areas that they formerly did live in., per fossil evidence and even mans written history. The pre-flood world was different than it is today, no doubt. But animals are not affected to the point of change by exterior forces. Other than if the eco-system does not contributed to its original God given design, it will perish. We have many examples of this in history? I suggest to you that in history every one of these issues you have stated have changed, and some drastically---

Taking a look at the polar bear that lived through the 1500’s warm up that completely caused the ice covered north to have it glaciers disappear as there are maps from many different sources showing the land masses with its coastlines clear. I suggest that the polar bear would go extinct if the temps had gotten too high, but the range of the heat up was still within its ability to survive, so all of these things have existed more or less including the oxygen levels which recent experiments have grown standard dragon flies in a oxygen rich environment that were 18” long. So the gigantism is possibly a result of the oxygen content. I am not dogmatic on that, but I know that oxygen content can affect growth, but not change the specie body plan....

Moose said:
Mammals were always there, dinosaurs were always there, humans were always there. But these fauna did not proliferate in the pre-flood easily fossilizing environments. Only easily fossilizing amphibians fossils are widespread during the pre-flood world.


Lou Said:
I’ll have to disagree with you, need to read some of Dr. Carl Werner's work on fossils and the whole earth was covered in diversity pre-flood, no doubt. There are fossils under ash from pre-flood super volcanoes, Karoo, and the Canadian dinos....there are tons of evidence of a fully robust pre-flood world of animal species....

Moose said:
Ruins of cities etc are possibly found below the Siberian basalt and at approximately 3km below the surface and so are never found, you don't build cities in swamps,

Lou Said:

Moose its a known fact that many cultures especially in South America/ Mexico and the Orient did build in and around swamp lands....I am not into geology so I will not respond to that as I would make a fool out of my self, but some other good soul here might want to respond to that. So I believe there were many cities pre-flood so where is your evidence of these cities in or under basalt, it doesn’t bother me at all, between Adams kin after the garden and others plenty of time to build cities and explore.

Moose said:
Small reptiles proliferated in the hot desert post-flood conditions. Reptiles became large in the hot high pressure environment a few hundred years later caused by the flood's methane spike that had a greenhouse effect on earth. Large reptiles largely died off during the comet strike approximately 3800 years ago that dropped temperatures and dropped oxygen content and dropped air pressures which the large dinosaurs could not handle. since then mammals have proliferated while the last dinos have been dying off.

Lou said:
Pre-flood dinos contained all the species T-rex, and other therapods and herbivorous dinos, etc:

Super volcanoes—Toba and original Vesuvius, and other Mexican volcanoes pre flood, all said to have affected the planet in such away that the dinos went extinct.?
How about the Canadian comet that hit the great bear lake area, or other such known hits of space objects during mans history. Lastly it is a fact that dinos lived up and into mans written history. That is a fact. The last dinos seemed to die off in mans history. I actually believe there may be dinos left in certain regions and hold out for such? Crazy me???? I am implying that God created them all and they were existent in a fully robust creation, and the need for millions of years are unnecessary in my own opinion. What does bother me, is there are so many explanations for dinos demise, volcanoes, climate change, flood, Meteor hits, and all of them are said to cause extinction? Something is wring with this???? Maybe we just don’t have the real right naswer yet, and so I am open to new ideas.....


#84 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 05 August 2012 - 12:47 PM

i don't see where moose said any of that to be honest.

#85 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:51 PM

Jay did I mis read who posted that? I am still getting used of this forum, IO obviously responded to someone as the posts are part of my response? Cheers!!!

#86 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,372 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:28 PM

Yes, you did misread who posted that. The statements you are attributing to Moose, at least the latter ones, were made by newpath here (http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=85376).

#87 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:43 PM

Wow! I apologize for that.! Sorry Guys!!! Sorry Moose!

#88 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:02 AM

I feel, as one of the evolution side, I must tread very lightly not to offend.

Does't the "hasn't been developed much yet" in itself rather conflict with "it fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence".

After all, "God was behind it all" fits in with all known evidence, and is not contradicted by any known evidence, but is pretty much lacking in any detail of how God went about the job.

I think that as attempts to develop your theory progresses, you are subject to finding a lot of "doesn't fit and does contadict the known evidence.

Moose

Cool!

I will keep looking for contradictory evidence as I develop my theory, and would appreciate it if you would point to anything contradictory yourself. If some objection immediately comes to mind, you could post it, thanks.

If no objection immediately comes to mind, well then that would be interesting in itself.

#89 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:05 AM

Wow! I apologize for that.! Sorry Guys!!! Sorry Moose!


LOL what about sorry to Newpath :) I prefer the name Newpath to Moose
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#90 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:15 AM

Some comments to Moose from Lou:

You make some assumptions with what you have articulated.. Might I point out that the pre-flood fossil record given a wwFlood shows that animals of all kinds which live today lived then including dinos?


Yes I do see that in the current more widely accepted flood model. However I feel that the flood model fails to admit to the fact that there was a swampy easily fossilising environment before the flood. This geologic layer is one of the lowest layers and is easily defined by the type of amphibians, huge dragonflies etc etc. This environment is not found today, it has become extinct. This environment existed before the flood. This environment would have had 1750 years of swamp fossils, unlike other environments which do not fossilize easily.

The current flood model which assumes nearly all fossils were created during the flood does not acknowledge this different pre-flood world. I do agree with you though that many of the non-swampy environments covered over by the flood could be incorrectly assumed to be later by evolutionists based on their assumptions on the timeline of the development of fauna/flora, when they could easily be synonymous with the swampy environments.


Do you assume a long age in your formula?

I assume a short age, all biological life being created within the last 6500 years. I believe the watery earth was created before the six days in which biological life was created.



So I am not trying to “make” you anything—I suggest to you that clearly the evidence does indeed show a Designer and creator as the basis for all life and the planet(s) no unguided mechanism could be responsible for this. I can share 5 or 6 good examples of lizard species that are found in different parts of the world. But these design features are found over and over and over in nature. Good design is used over and over—the wheel for instance on a bike, a plane, a wheel barrow, a car, etc. So if you get a hold of design, you can only conclude a designer.... For me design is evidence and convincing evidence given the design features I am aware of in the animal kingdom alone....

My point here is, there need not be any long time per se. Only because we have historical narrative which I believe is accurate. I think men are working hard to find out what it all says in context. Faith and hermeneutics are a very sticky place, for one such as yourself who has no obsession to or a profound sense of accountability to a creator, it is natural that you have the perspective you do. You see your self as a specie? Nothing special just a specie? That as you know is a big gulf between us....

The greatest scientists of old were indeed Christians who wanted to glorify God in there science and discover the secrets of how God did what he did.

Agreed!
(ps I do have a sense of accountability to a creator - I am a Christian creationist)


So as a side note I am involved with reptiles and have studied lizards for over 40 years. Here is what I can share with you:

The Texas Horned lizard, the Gila Monster, the desert Collared lizard all have fossil records, as does the Tuatara, and many other diversity such as geckos in amber encased , and wall lizards, and others. All of these have a presence in the fossil record, what is interesting about that is not one of those animals have changed at all, and it is my contention that these are the same today as when originally created.....so I would be a “fixity of species” type person for good reasons which I can expand on later.

Agreed! I also believe in a fixity of species.


Moose said:
- Each type of fauna proliferates when conditions are suitable. The main variation in environmental conditions are :
1) Moisture content
2) Oxygen content in the air
3) Oxygen content in the oceans
4) Temperature
5) Air pressure
6) Magnetic fields (protection from solar winds)
7) Atmospheric strength (protection from solar winds)


Lou said:
It is an undeniable fact given good conditions all life responds to those conditions. That’s a fact, these things that you have above are part and parcel to “good life”.

I wasn't suggesting an evolutionary response to conditions, I am a creationist. I was suggesting a proliferation when conditions are suitable. Huge numbers of the suitable life-forms, minimal numbers and occasional extinctions of the non-suitable life forms. In another environment there could be very few large cat predators and huge numbers of Komodo dragons. At the moment Komodo dragons are few. The relative proliferation of amphibians/reptiles/mammals was strictly according to environmental conditions. I am a creationist and looking at the lowest flood layers covered "in situ" I see a moist pre-flood world with high oxygen conditions, high atmospheric pressure (huge insects) and a cool world. There were very few mammals or large reptiles then, conditions were not suitable.


However with respect to adaptation--no exterior condition can contribute change to DNA genetics. That is a fact, so if your referring to adaptation---this idea above I want to challenge you on. Animals have a max-min if you will and in certain circumstances if they are put beyond there own DNA design, they will go extinct. We know many of our diversity today are not found in areas that they formerly did live in., per fossil evidence and even mans written history. The pre-flood world was different than it is today, no doubt. But animals are not affected to the point of change by exterior forces. Other than if the eco-system does not contributed to its original God given design, it will perish. We have many examples of this in history? I suggest to you that in history every one of these issues you have stated have changed, and some drastically---

True! Remember I am a creationist who agrees on this. There are however atmospheric/dietary conditions that can change the look of fauna/flora even over a single generation, with no DNA effects at all. Merely response of the body to conditions. Plants placed in high pressure high oxygen chambers can grow enormous, with no DNA changes whatsoever.


Taking a look at the polar bear that lived through the 1500’s warm up that completely caused the ice covered north to have it glaciers disappear as there are maps from many different sources showing the land masses with its coastlines clear. I suggest that the polar bear would go extinct if the temps had gotten too high, but the range of the heat up was still within its ability to survive, so all of these things have existed more or less including the oxygen levels which recent experiments have grown standard dragon flies in a oxygen rich environment that were 18” long. So the gigantism is possibly a result of the oxygen content. I am not dogmatic on that, but I know that oxygen content can affect growth, but not change the specie body plan..


Ok , you are saying what I have just said, so we are on the same page here. It may be an interesting thought to you that the methane releases caused by the dead vegetation and volcanic excesses during the flood could have caused a greenhouse effect and spike air pressures. creating huge reptiles from the smaller flood survivors. And so again, no DNA change but a massive change to the main survivors of the flood, reptiles. They grew to massive sizes soon after the flood, not before the flood.

USing the current flood model of which I'm sure you do adhere to, right in the middle of the flood you get these huge basalt flows. Above the flows you get a silted up environment with a few reptile fossils. Elsewhere above the swamp amphibian fossils you get a silted up sandy layer with a few surviving reptile fossils. then later you get the very proliferate large reptile fossils (dinos) . Your flood explanation says this is how the bodies drowned and yet fails to explain how the plants show a chemical change over that period from a low carbon 12 environment to a high carbon 12 environment during the flood. Even the dino environments show a lowered oxygen content together with a higher carbon 12 levels than earlier flood layers. My flood explanation says that small reptiles proliferated after the flood when conditions suited them, hot and dry. The high carbon 12 caused a greenhouse effect causing reptiles to grow, just as you explained that dragonflies can grow under certain conditions. And so my flood model is clearer as to why scientists are continuously recognizing UNIVERSAL TRENDS during the layering, something that the widely accepted flood model ignores completely, a head-in-the-sand approach. Observed are long periods of slight growth in oxygen and stability in carbon 12 levels in lower layers. Then a sudden spike in carbon 12 levels followed by a slow drop in oxygen levels. Your flood model fails to explain this, my flood model explains this perfectly. But my model has the additional beauty of associating the huge life-spans of pre-flood humans with the luscious Carboniferous period, and then the greatest death event of science (P-T boundary) is associated with the greatest death event of the bible (flood). Then the dropping life-spans after the flood are associated with the cometary impact that caused the dinosaur extinctions. It all fits perfectly except for evolutionist time-frames.

Of course this is hardly palatable to most creationists because this would be actually acknowledging that some studies of evolutionists have some merit, I have oberved that creationists reject most scientific studies due to their assumptions of evolutionary bias. However some of those studies contain fantastic information regarding the pre-flood and post-flood worlds when we remove the bias and look merely at the evidence presented. The evidence is often done honestly under strict scientific conditions , its their interpretation of the evidence that is faulty, the evidence however is informative.
..


Moose said:
Mammals were always there, dinosaurs were always there, humans were always there. But these fauna did not proliferate in the pre-flood easily fossilizing environments. Only easily fossilizing amphibians fossils are widespread during the pre-flood world.


Lou Said:
I’ll have to disagree with you, need to read some of Dr. Carl Werner's work on fossils and the whole earth was covered in diversity pre-flood, no doubt. There are fossils under ash from pre-flood super volcanoes, Karoo, and the Canadian dinos....there are tons of evidence of a fully robust pre-flood world of animal species....


Ok I will read his work, thanks for that.



Moose said:
Small reptiles proliferated in the hot desert post-flood conditions. Reptiles became large in the hot high pressure environment a few hundred years later caused by the flood's methane spike that had a greenhouse effect on earth. Large reptiles largely died off during the comet strike approximately 3800 years ago that dropped temperatures and dropped oxygen content and dropped air pressures which the large dinosaurs could not handle. since then mammals have proliferated while the last dinos have been dying off.

Lou said:
Pre-flood dinos contained all the species T-rex, and other therapods and herbivorous dinos, etc:


No problem with that, I am referring to PROLIFERATION through the ages. The tendency of some creatures to become the dominant species. I believe its in the 4350 years ago to about 3800 years ago that dinos were most common.

Super volcanoes—Toba and original Vesuvius, and other Mexican volcanoes pre flood, all said to have affected the planet in such away that the dinos went extinct.?
How about the Canadian comet that hit the great bear lake area, or other such known hits of space objects during mans history. Lastly it is a fact that dinos lived up and into mans written history. That is a fact. The last dinos seemed to die off in mans history. I actually believe there may be dinos left in certain regions and hold out for such? Crazy me???? I am implying that God created them all and they were existent in a fully robust creation, and the need for millions of years are unnecessary in my own opinion. What does bother me, is there are so many explanations for dinos demise, volcanoes, climate change, flood, Meteor hits, and all of them are said to cause extinction? Something is wring with this???? Maybe we just don’t have the real right naswer yet, and so I am open to new ideas.....


I believe they went extinct post-flood. I agree that dinos have been around until recently and may just still exist.

I see no problem with accepting the scientific explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, a cometary impact. This would have caused an ice age (dust blocking out the sun). This would have caused the slipped disks widely observed in the more recent large dinosaur fossils. This would have killed off vegetation, dropping oxygen levels and atmospheric pressure. All would have made it difficult for dinosaurs after the impact. They need a warm high oxygen high pressure environment, the impact caused a cool low oxygen low pressure environment (in addition to breaking a lot of their backs). I believe the cometary impact occurred approximately 3800 years ago (bp) during the end of the Holocene Climate optimum and the end of the Old Civilization of Egypt.

#91 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:33 AM

New Path said:
Ok, you are saying what I have just said, so we are on the same page here. It may be an interesting thought to you that the methane releases caused by the dead vegetation and volcanic excesses during the flood could have caused a greenhouse effect and spike air pressures. creating huge reptiles from the smaller flood survivors. And so again, no DNA change but a massive change to the main survivors of the flood, reptiles. They grew to massive sizes soon after the flood, not before the flood.

Lou Said:
Dear New Path--I am open to new ideas, I am not stuck in a box of hermenutic interpretation, I want to be specific, I used the term "given a wwFlood." However I actually am a local flood advocate and not a wwFlood. I realize the possibility of a wwFlood, but do to a lack of explantion as to how the dispersion and other issues around the ARk took place, I am "drawn" to a local flood.

I take issue based on "evidence" with you about the dinos, I do not discount this per se, but here is what I think you need to look at---IMHO. The fossil record is very clear, now if you believe all fossils are "post-flood" then I iwll not argue with you on your points. But I suggest that the fossils were formed pre-flood as well as flood and evenpost-flood. I have no interpretation of the earths observable evidences that would preclude fossils having only taken place one time and during the flood, Everest fossils should be an example (not on the rock but actually in the rock). There are examples of ash covered fossils from several volcanoes (pre-flood), There is Karoo fossil bed which implies a cyclical happening, there is the same type of thing that happened in Canada where there appears to be a flood like disaster, but was it the flood..... certain things around that make me think not. So having said that and placement of the fossils, I believe that dinos were designed huge at the creation point, and that Dinos and man lived contemporaneously. Now it is interesting that certian species of insects and other animals show large size when exposed to higher levels of oxygen (this is a fact) and then what we have today is the same animal at a smaller size, so something did influence certain animals. I am open, but I also think that the fossil record are not post flood only per se and in fact imply that dinos and their sizes etc. were large from the beginning of creation? I do reject evolution, but I also don't believe science is the "boogie man", some of most greatest Christians who started certain sciences saw science and its methods as a way fo glorifying God -so science in the right hands is no issue at all with me. Science has contributed much to our understanding...its always interesting that AIG and other sites can't wait to bring up a scientific site that supports their contention but when speaking with my fellow YEC bothers, many of them will poop-poo science and go back to the biblical narrative, but I think some of the views may be incorrect (not the bible, but the hermeneutics)

#92 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:56 AM

New Path said: Ok, you are saying what I have just said, so we are on the same page here. It may be an interesting thought to you that the methane releases caused by the dead vegetation and volcanic excesses during the flood could have caused a greenhouse effect and spike air pressures. creating huge reptiles from the smaller flood survivors. And so again, no DNA change but a massive change to the main survivors of the flood, reptiles. They grew to massive sizes soon after the flood, not before the flood. Lou Said: Dear New Path--I am open to new ideas, I am not stuck in a box of hermenutic interpretation, I want to be specific, I used the term "given a wwFlood." However I actually am a local flood advocate and not a wwFlood. I realize the possibility of a wwFlood, but do to a lack of explantion as to how the dispersion and other issues around the ARk took place, I am "drawn" to a local flood. I take issue based on "evidence" with you about the dinos, I do not discount this per se, but here is what I think you need to look at---IMHO. The fossil record is very clear, now if you believe all fossils are "post-flood" then I iwll not argue with you on your points. But I suggest that the fossils were formed pre-flood as well as flood and evenpost-flood. I have no interpretation of the earths observable evidences that would preclude fossils having only taken place one time and during the flood, Everest fossils should be an example (not on the rock but actually in the rock). There are examples of ash covered fossils from several volcanoes (pre-flood), There is Karoo fossil bed which implies a cyclical happening, there is the same type of thing that happened in Canada where there appears to be a flood like disaster, but was it the flood..... certain things around that make me think not. So having said that and placement of the fossils, I believe that dinos were designed huge at the creation point, and that Dinos and man lived contemporaneously. Now it is interesting that certian species of insects and other animals show large size when exposed to higher levels of oxygen (this is a fact) and then what we have today is the same animal at a smaller size, so something did influence certain animals. I am open, but I also think that the fossil record are not post flood only per se and in fact imply that dinos and their sizes etc. were large from the beginning of creation? I do reject evolution, but I also don't believe science is the "boogie man", some of most greatest Christians who started certain sciences saw science and its methods as a way fo glorifying God -so science in the right hands is no issue at all with me. Science has contributed much to our understanding...its always interesting that AIG and other sites can't wait to bring up a scientific site that supports their contention but when speaking with my fellow YEC bothers, many of them will poop-poo science and go back to the biblical narrative, but I think some of the views may be incorrect (not the bible, but the hermeneutics)


Yeah well I will have to adjust my view if there are pre-flood dinos. I will look into Dr. Carl Werner's work. As for pre-flood mammals , I believe they were there in smaller numbers and in non-fossilizing environments, which is normally the habitat of mammals even today. I do agree that dinosaurs and man lived contemporously, but I believe this was post-flood. I'm sure that I did make it clear in my posts. Thanks for an interesting exchange of ideas.

#93 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 06 August 2012 - 07:48 PM

Cool!

I will keep looking for contradictory evidence as I develop my theory, and would appreciate it if you would point to anything contradictory yourself. If some objection immediately comes to mind, you could post it, thanks.

If no objection immediately comes to mind, well then that would be interesting in itself.


Sorry, I got distracted by the topic title "The Defeat Of Flood Geology By Flood Geology(?)", and had the idea this was a geology topic. Maybe it originally was, but it seems to have taken a biology turn. I'm sort of a geologist, and know very little biology. And I'm not about to go tap-dancing in the microevolution/macroevolution forum rules minefield.

Maybe see you in a geology topic somewhere.

Moose

#94 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:13 PM

Sorry, I got distracted by the topic title "The Defeat Of Flood Geology By Flood Geology(?)", and had the idea this was a geology topic. Maybe it originally was, but it seems to have taken a biology turn. I'm sort of a geologist, and know very little biology. And I'm not about to go tap-dancing in the microevolution/macroevolution forum rules minefield.

Maybe see you in a geology topic somewhere.

Moose


I believe the opening post , the following posts, and my own theory are all very closely related to geology. You see, the standard flood model held by most creationists believes that most rock was formed during the one year of the flood, which has some logic based on the fact that most rock is formed through water-borne processes, followed by pressure.

The opening post pointed out a valid point, that land-based basalt is found within these flood layers, and so how did this volcanic activity cause this land formed basalt in the middle of the wet conditions of the flood.

My explanation for this is my personal theory on a worldwide flood. I believe the lower geological layers up until the carboniferous are pre-flood deposits. Most studies of this period unfortunately focus on the wetlands fossils, because they are so common and widespread. The Permian is largely flood deposits. The flood occurred at the P-T boundary, the Permian Traps contributing towards this. This would explain the land formed basalt. I believe the Triassic and Jurassic are post-flood fossilization.

So in essence the whole discussion revolves around geology.

#95 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 07 August 2012 - 12:18 AM


Marking what message this is a reply to.

We shall see if I can get into this discussion in greater detail later. Right now, I have an article that you may not have seen before. It might be exploring a similar to your concept:
Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico - http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

Moose

#96 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 07 August 2012 - 01:32 AM

Marking what message this is a reply to.

We shall see if I can get into this discussion in greater detail later. Right now, I have an article that you may not have seen before. It might be exploring a similar to your concept:
Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico - http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp

Moose


Thanks for the link. Yes they do deal with the theory of the flood boundary occurring at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary as I have been proposing. I see my theory would entail sedimentation of about 3.5 metres a year over the 4350 years since the flood, and therefore do understand their favoring the now widely accepted flood model that is more all-encompassing. However these creationists, when disputing my view, the very region they are focussing on does have an extremely high sedimentation rate, their cross section ending exactly at the Mississippi delta, so their graph does not represent average widespread sedimentation, but it represents the most concentrated sedimentation rates of the entire North America. Because it drains into a shallow sea, it is possibly the most sedimentary accumulative area in the world. The Mississippi delta has accumulated 27 cubic miles of sediment merely in the last 500 years http://jsedres.geosc...4/2/76.abstract. Multiply that by 9 and we get to 243 cubic miles of sediment in that region alone since 4500 bp. If each region down that slope of sediment experienced the same rate of sedimentation (a southward moving river delta) this would explain the 3.5 metres of sedimentation per year over 4350 years.This external link emphasizes the sedimentary accumulaton rate of that particular region: http://bulletin.geos.../7/999.abstract So I feel that their favoring the more common flood theory over the P-T boundary flood based on this point alone is not convincing enough.

ie a flood at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary and 4350 years of sedimentation would explain conditions as per today. Evolutionary timeframes of 252 million years since the P-T boundary event cannot explain modern observed erosion and sedimentation rates. Neither can the more widely accepted flood model explain this adequately.

#97 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:40 PM

Yes they do deal with the theory of the flood boundary occurring at the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary as I have been proposing.


You do realize that there is abundant evidence for the seas having come well up onto the continents prior to the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary? Perhaps even more than at/after the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary.

Moose

#98 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 30 August 2012 - 12:39 AM

You do realize that there is abundant evidence for the seas having come well up onto the continents prior to the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary? Perhaps even more than at/after the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary.

Moose


Are you referring to the Cambrian oceans, during the stage that the world had a small landmass, or are you referring to marine transgressions after land fauna/flora had established themselves on the larger landmasses during the Carboniferous?

I believe those marine transgression during the Carboniferous leave a better flood record than Noah's flood due to the time factor being longer, and marine evidence being more firmly established during that time. The quick one year flood left behind less flooding evidence, but more dramatic world changes than those longer slower changes which did not effect world climate. ie the P-T boundary shows methane spikes, anoxic oceans, fungal spikes, extinctions, climate change from cold to warm climate, vegetation from proliferate to desert conditions. Fauna from amphibians to reptiles. Scientists all argue about what caused the extreme death, I feel the answer is the flood itself. A natural consequence of the ice caps and glaciation of the carboniferous is the enlarging of the continental mass as oceans levels dropped due to icing up. A natural consequence of the Permian traps is the seeding of the planet's atmosphere, huge volcanic rainfalls, and the melting of the ice, all causing rising sea levels that covered those landmass gains and dropping water vapour levels (rainfall) contributed further to worldwide flooding..





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Flood Geology, Young Earth

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)