Jump to content


Photo

Problems With Noahachianismdiluvialismfloodology


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

#1 Vashgun

Vashgun

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Age: 23
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 September 2007 - 09:07 PM

:huh:

I have run into many problems whilst debating the flooood. Namely:


Is there any scientific research done and documented that supplies an explanation for the different layers? Evo's always bring up the fact that there is "no' evidence for a world wide flood because there would a layer of mixed sediment; also the sediment wouldn't form layers.

What about those paleosols? Any scientific research or field observations to discredit these?

What about polystrata fossils? Stigmaria is automatically brought up along with the "fact" that the tree's roots are in the same soil they were when layers were deposited over. Also, I have seen pics of a telephone pole buried in multiple layers.


Where is the scientific evidence? Where is the model? How could it have happened?

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 September 2007 - 12:07 AM

:blink:

I have run into many problems whilst debating the flooood.  Namely:
Is there any scientific research done and documented that supplies an explanation for the different layers?  Evo's always bring up the fact that there is "no' evidence for a world wide flood because there would a layer of mixed sediment; also the sediment wouldn't form layers.


There is, but they won't accept the evidence. So to what point would you want to present what won't be accepted?

What about those paleosols?  Any scientific research or field observations to discredit these?


Naturalistic science, and creation science are separated for a reason. One hates God, the other does not. Neither will accept the other's view on the interpretation of evidence found. Paleosols is just one of the many excuses evolutionist use.

What about polystrata fossils?  Stigmaria is automatically brought up along with the "fact" that the tree's roots are in the same soil they were when layers were deposited over.  Also, I have seen pics of a telephone pole buried in multiple layers.Where is the scientific evidence?  Where is the model?  How could it have happened?

View Post



God's word never promised that we would come to know everything about the creation. Nor would we ever completely understand the word of God. This is where faith comes in, and why creation is part of it. If you want a naturalistc answer for everything in the creation, you are not going to find it. If you want to go off on a creation theory search for naturalistic answers. There are many to choose from. Each are different and claim they are all true. And most do not give any Glory to God for His creation.

And many are stepping stones to converting to the evolution theory. The question is: Do you have enough faith to allow God to create, and flood the earth? Evolutionist like to get you to have a "God did it" phobia. In this way, you deny God did anything. Because each time you use that comment, they will make sure you look stupid for invoking a supernatural power they cannot argue with. But to change from what takes faith to believe, to what requires site. Denies the main reason why we believe in God in the first place. So if you cannot have faith in the creation, the flood, etc... Because you listen to those who will never conceed (bible scoffers) to it. Then soon you will start doubting that even God exists.

Now if you can get past this, I will explain the flood. But I can tell you that no evolutionist-bible scoffer is going to accept what you say because it invokes the power of God.

#3 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 24 September 2007 - 03:30 PM

I made a long post, but I lost it, my computer conked out or something, i hate that.

2 things.

1) who was the guy that proved sediment always settles in layers, anyone have a link?
2) we have seen pictures of trees standing up in multiple layers of sediment, coal, and even pertified. This goes along with flood theory just fine, but hasn't really been answered by evolution reasonably.

sorry that is a much shorter version =þ

#4 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 24 September 2007 - 06:28 PM

we have seen pictures of trees standing up in multiple layers of sediment, coal, and even pertified.  This goes along with flood theory just fine,

View Post


Really? Can you explain to me how flood theory predicts this please?

These trees appear to be growing upright in place when they were buried. But there are often thousands of feet of sediment below them. So what does flood theory say? Was there one flood, followed by tree growth then another flood?

By the middle of the 19th century it was known that trees appeared to be growing at multiple levels of the geologic column.
Posted Image

Someone here suggested that they floated into place? Does that sound rational given the size of these trees?


Posted Image
http://news.national...d-trees_big.jpg
How do we explain the layers of coal, sediment, lava below them?

Flood theory was popular in the early part of the 19th century. However, even though most geologists at the time were Christian, they couldn't get a flood theory to explain all the different layers of salt water sediment, fresh water sediment, salt, lava, sand, coal, swamp layers, limestone layers, coral layer, etc.


I would be very interested to see a new flood theory that could explain huge coral growths, salt layers and vast lava layers - some of these 1000s of feet thick.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 September 2007 - 03:39 AM

jamesf:

Yep, just like I can dig up stuff along the same lines evolutionists cannot explain. But would that make you consider that evolution might be wrong? Nope. Why? You have already accepted evolution as truth, and rejected everything else.

National Geographic got their heads bit off for questioning evolution in this print of their magazine:
http://www.yecheadqu...g/shame.43.html

But even though everyone has debunked this bird. Another one was found:
http://www.foxnews.c...,281833,00.html

So what does that say about the first one? Was it a cover up by Darwin fundies to protect their beloved theory?

What this proves is that Darwin's theory cannot even be questioned within the circle of it's own peers. That within itself shows corruption in science for wanted truth, and not allowing evidence to guide them to truth.

I can't wait for the explanation for the latest find, and how they are going to do damage control as people tie in the other bird find with this one and ask for the other bird to do independent testing to see if their conclusion was based a cover up.

This must be why no more details about the bird are being released. They probably are having a think quest on how to cover this one up. And still be able to answer all questions. Problem is, canned answers are very telling and easy to spot.

One way they could do it is lose the first bird. After all, NASA lost the movie clips to the first man walk. That way they can claim: Because it was a hoax, we threw it in the trash. But, they would have a hard time explaining how they threw it away after paying a big amount of money just to get it. Or, maybe that was the plan. Paying money makes the claim that it is fake more viable. Because after all, money corrupts, so it would not be hard to say that the bird was corrupt because the bird finder got money for it.

I made a long post, but I lost it, my computer conked out or something, i hate that.


If you post while server is doing maintenance, your post won't go through. When I do a long post, I always highlight it then right click to copy. Then I click to post what I said. If post does not go through. My pc has it in memory. So I click to post again and paste what I just copied.

#6 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 25 September 2007 - 02:05 PM

Really? Can you explain to me how flood theory predicts this please?


Sure I'll be happy to.

The earth is created 6500* years ago
Normal earthly activities happen for 2500* Years (Over a Third of the Earths Life)
The Flood Happens 2500* Years after Creation
Normal earthly activities happen for another 4000* years
Here we are today Waving good bye to the Man on the Mountain.

*all numbers are very rough estimates,


There isn't really much more to it. The flood didn't happen two seconds after creation. There was plenty of time for earthquakes, volcanos, local floods, landslides.

If you stick with the assumption that these layers take millions of years to form, of course you are going to think, "wow, layers under the trees, no way the flood could of been before those layers" But if you actually look at the creationist timeline, the earth was around and active for over 1/3 of it's total life before the flood. And look how much it's changed in just our lifetime.

The question we need to debate is, CAN those layers form in 100's of years, 10's of years, or do they need Millions of years.

#7 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 26 September 2007 - 11:57 AM

Sure I'll be happy to.

The earth is created 6500* years ago
Normal earthly activities happen for 2500* Years (Over a Third of the Earths Life)
The Flood Happens 2500* Years after Creation
Normal earthly activities happen for another 4000* years

View Post


Ok, you have an hypothesis or a proposal. To make it into a theory, you need to show how this proposal can account for all the different lines of evidence that are out there. I would argue that creationists do not have a theory yet. They made valient attempts in the 19th century but couldn't make it work.

The question we need to debate is, CAN those layers form in 100's of years, 10's of years, or do they need Millions of years.

View Post


Great! I agree. This is an important part of the debate. Can you show that this proposal is consistent with the evidence. From what I know, I would say that you can't do it. But I would certainly respect seeing someone make the effort.

If you go here, you will see a geologic map of Europe.
http://www.soton.ac..../jpg/eurogy.jpg

This represents the modern geologic theory of the age of the different rocks. However, long before dating techniques were developed scientists noticed many things that were not consistent with a worldwide flood. I could probably list 100 or so such findings. But here are a handful.

1. Large coral reefs are found at many different layers, but are not found below the Cambrian layers (the lowest layers)

2. No complex lifeforms are found below the Cambrian - no pollen, branches, bones, shells, teeth etc - only algae (accept those odd Edicaria in the very late precambrian).

3. No modern mammal bones have ever been found in layers below the KT boundary (layers below the Tertiary).

4. No dinosaur bones, footprints etc have ever been found above the Cretaceous (tertiary or higher)

5. Most of the layers show evidence of events that appear to take a very long time to lay down such as.
a. dry salt lakes,
b. tremendously large volcanic deposits,
c. thick chalk layers like the white hills of dover
http://www.nationalt...ffs-history.htm

d. large glacial deposits

6. Many of the layers were layed down in conditions when it was dry and they are often interspersed with layers that were layed down when there was sea. We might find evidence of a swamp on one layer, marine deposits on the next, and then dinosaur nests and tree growth on the next, dry volcanic dust on the next, etc.



So there is a start. No global flood theory has been able to explain these findings - as far as I know. But hey, I am willing to learn.

#8 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 26 September 2007 - 03:30 PM

Great! I agree. This is an important part of the debate. Can you show that this proposal is consistent with the evidence. From what I know, I would say that you can't do it. But I would certainly respect seeing someone make the effort.

If you go here, you will see a geologic map of Europe.
http://www.soton.ac..../jpg/eurogy.jpg

This represents the modern geologic theory of the age of the different rocks. However, long before dating techniques were developed scientists noticed many things that were not consistent with a worldwide flood. I could probably list 100 or so such findings. But here are a handful.


Well I'm not a geologist but I'll give it a shot.

First I have to state that it is my understanding that the "Modern geologic theory" with the layers was conceived in error. Meaning it was conceived with the assumption of the earth being billions of years old.

If you remove the assumption of the earth being billions of years old you no longer have layers that represent large time frames. Everything really has to be viewed much more locally.

1. Large coral reefs are found at many different layers, but are not found below the Cambrian layers (the lowest layers)


I don't really see these as too much of a problem for creationist, they all kinda fall into common sense pretty well.

Coral reefs should be found on many different layers, they live, prosper then die like anything else. The lowest layers with signs of life would basically represent when the earth was created.

2. No complex lifeforms are found below the Cambrian - no pollen, branches, bones, shells, teeth etc - only algae  (accept those odd Edicaria in the very late precambrian).


Well like I said I'm not a geologist, but I know enough to know that those "layers" aren't found consistently all over the earth, some places have extra layers and some places are missing layers, some places the layers are completely out of order. So when you say No complex lifeforms are found below the Cambrian, you really have to talk more locally. My first guess is that if you found a large area with nothing but algae in it, I would say it was probably under water in a prime environment for algea. If I knew more about it, we could speculate why it wasn't a good environment for fish.


3. No modern mammal bones have ever been found in layers below the KT boundary (layers below the Tertiary).

4. No dinosaur bones, footprints etc have ever been found above the Cretaceous (tertiary or higher)


For these two I'm going to refer to H*vind's material. He references a scientist who studied the way matter would settle in an extreme flood event and found it to be pretty consistent with fossil records. i.e. birds being found on the highest layers, etc.

5. Most of the layers show evidence of events that appear to take a very long time to lay down such as.
a. dry salt lakes,
b. tremendously large volcanic deposits,
c. thick chalk layers  like the white hills of dover
http://www.nationalt...ffs-history.htm

d. large glacial deposits


Once again it's assumed these events take a long time. Although I don't know how volcanic deposits made that list, I think we all pretty much know it doesn't take very long to receive a large volcanic deposits.

If you view the earth as having 1/3 of it's total life before the flood, it doesn't take long for those events to occur.

6. Many of the layers were layed down in conditions when it was dry and they are often interspersed with layers that were layed down when there was sea. We might find evidence of a swamp on one layer, marine deposits on the next, and then dinosaur nests and tree growth on the next, dry volcanic dust on the next, etc.


I think this is a non-issue, once again creationist aren't saying the earth didn't go through various changes and have local events.

So there is a start. No global flood theory has been able to explain these findings - as far as I know. But hey, I am willing to learn.

View Post



I dunno, I just don't see how all that is conclusive evidence that the earth is old.

#9 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

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

Posted 27 September 2007 - 01:09 PM

:blink:

I have run into many problems whilst debating the flooood.  Namely:
Is there any scientific research done and documented that supplies an explanation for the different layers?  Evo's always bring up the fact that there is "no' evidence for a world wide flood because there would a layer of mixed sediment; also the sediment wouldn't form layers.

What about those paleosols?  Any scientific research or field observations to discredit these?

What about polystrata fossils?  Stigmaria is automatically brought up along with the "fact" that the tree's roots are in the same soil they were when layers were deposited over.  Also, I have seen pics of a telephone pole buried in multiple layers.
Where is the scientific evidence?  Where is the model?  How could it have happened?

View Post


If you are looking for some good articles written by creation scientists here is a good website:

http://www.icr.org/topic/12/

This site also contains many other articles on a variety of subjects.

Enjoy

Bob Barclay

#10 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2007 - 01:18 AM

:blink:


What about polystrata fossils?  Stigmaria is automatically brought up along with the "fact" that the tree's roots are in the same soil they were when layers were deposited over.  Also, I have seen pics of a telephone pole buried in multiple layers.
Where is the scientific evidence?  Where is the model?  How could it have happened?

View Post

There's been some solid research done on these topics. The best explanation for the placement of polystrtate fossils is rapid deposition. Often times the claims you run into are not supported by evidence from the specific sites in question. The fact that the trees are petrified and a geologist says you're wrong is all it takes.

On the Talkorigins (anti-creationist) web site, Andrew MacRae (1997) claimed that polystrate fossils were not a problem for nineteenth-century geologists, again suggesting that modern-day creationists have no case. Although the same as Young’s (1982) argument, it is still invalid, depending on “truth by majority vote.” MacRae discussed Dawson’s early research on the Joggins petrified “forests.” Dawson claimed that the trees have extensive root and root systems that penetrate into a coal seam or a paleosol (the underclay). Therefore, he concluded that the trees grew in place and were buried by local rapid deposition. Of course, he does not provide any evidence for such rapid deposition, other than the existence of the polystrate trees. MacRae further claims that in situ trees and “fossil forests” have been documented worldwide. The Joggins example, he claims, solved the polystrate fossil problem over 100 years ago, and creationists are simply out of date for not recognizing it—a typical ad hominem argument. Could it be that most nineteenth-century geologists were wearing uniformitarian blinders? Also, most of the polystrate fossil tree locations discussed show a lack of root balls, limbs, and bark.



#11 Al650

Al650

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2007 - 11:49 AM

As far as polystrate fossils, living trees were cut to pieces, tops and bottoms were sheared off. Polystrate trees have been found extending into coal beds. No tree exposed to the elements would have survived slow deposition of soil. I found a waterlogged tree section many years ago. It was easily 12 inches across. I struck it with a solid (non-waterlogged) stick and saw part of the bark come off. I struck it repeatedly and was able to cut it in half in about 30 minutes.

As has been pointed out, the evolutionists have circled the wagons around Darwin. They have a means to try to convince believers that their interpretation of the "evidence" is the way and the truth because the goal is NOT scientific knowledge but to transfer control of believers from God and the Church into their hands.

In reference to dinosaur birds, I want to point out the problem of fake fossils being made in China. Those people are smart and they are giving the unwary "what they want" which, in too many cases, is fake.

http://paleodirect.c...esefossils1.htm



God bless,
Al

#12 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 29 September 2007 - 02:08 PM

Over time, the floating trees become waterlogged and sink to the lake bottom. The surprising discovery was the way in which many of the logs sank. At first, all the logs were floating in the expected prone position. However, as they became saturated, some absorbed water more quickly into the root portion making it heavier such that they rotated into an upright floating position. Then, with further saturation, these trees would sink to the bottom and “plant” themselves into the soft lake sediment. New sediments washing in with each rain would bury the upright trees ever more deeply into the lake bottom. Trees that would sink at a later time would be buried higher in the sediment as though comprising a later forest. Though occurring on a much smaller scale, these observations are suggestive of what is observed at Specimen Ridge. Sonar readings and other data gathered by scuba divers revealed that 20 to 40 thousand upright trunks were planted at the bottom of Spirit Lake by 1985. Scientists estimate that at least ten percent of the tree trunks at the bottom of Spirit Lake have been deposited in the upright position.

reference

#13 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 29 September 2007 - 08:54 PM

Though occurring on a much smaller scale, these observations are suggestive of what is observed at Specimen Ridge.

View Post


I do find this fascinating. As you are probably aware, Yellowstone is a geologically active area and has been for quite some time. Yellowstone is part of a 'supervolcano' with mega-eruptions occuring several times in the past separated by times where sediment was layed down and things could grow. The geologic column in the area shows layers of vast lava flows interspersed with limestone, ashflows, sediment, hot spring deposits, etc.

So within all these alternating deposits of sediments and lava where was the flood?

Do you really want the petrified trees of the Specimen Ridge layed down in the flood? Then what do we do about the large lava flows below them and the sediment below that alternating for 1000s of feet? I see no way you can make a flood theory explain this.

Would you like to try?

If you go to this link, and load the PDF at the bottom, you will get a very nice chart of the alternating layers in the Yellowstone area.
http://www.ux1.eiu.e...l/yellstrat.htm


This certainly doesn't look like anything a flood would lay down. However, I am certainly be willing to be educated. Please show me how flood theory explains these alternations. Thanks

#14 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 September 2007 - 05:32 AM

Why would your alternating deposits of sediments and lava create a problem for the flood?
You seem to act as if the flood should have produced only one layer around the entire earth which looks like some sort of conglomerate.

Spirit lake is reproducing exactly what we see at Specimen Ridge. Scientist have actually witnesed the depositing of trees in an "in-situ" like position. I don't understand why you would continue with your argument.

#15 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 01 October 2007 - 08:11 PM

Why would your alternating deposits of sediments and lava create a problem for the flood?
You seem to act as if the flood should have produced only one layer around the entire earth which looks like some sort of conglomerate.

View Post


I don't know if I am communicating the notion of what is required of a "theory". You must take all the pieces of the puzzle (the evidence) and show that they go together to make a "big picture".

Pointing at the pile of pieces and saying that you "believe" they go together just fine, is simply a belief. It is not a theory. The geologists of the early 19th century (mostly Christian) tried to get a flood theory to work and they failed.

One of the problems they encountered is that there was no evidence of a single world wide flood. Any given region showed many different kinds of layers - only a portion of them were flood like.

The Yellowstone area is a wonderful example. There are huge volcanic layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. These sedimentary layers can be quite thick as well - sometimes with large petrified forests. The standard geologic theory is that the sedimentary layers were layed down over long periods - sometimes millions of years - interspersed with very large volcanic eruptions.

The Yellowstone Supervolcano has erupted fairly regularly over the last 3 million years - about every 600,000 years. And is currently due to erupt. The evidence of these different eruptions is pretty clear to geologists.

So I don't see how you can make a flood theory work - I don't see how the pieces fit together. But I love hearing new theories. So go for it.


Here's a nice photo of what happened in the last two big blasts - compared to Mt St. Helens.
Posted Image
http://www.news.wisc...s/volano_lg.jpg

#16 willis

willis

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 03:30 AM

The geologists of the early 19th century (mostly Christian) tried to get a flood theory to work and they failed.

That's simply not true. While Uniformitarianism is still the prevailing principle in modern geology, much of what the 19th Century catastrophists advocated has been confirmed today. The formation of the channeled scabland in eastern Washington was one such event that contributed to this.

One of the problems they encountered is that there was no evidence of a single world wide flood. Any given region showed many different kinds of layers - only a portion of them were flood like.

I think this comment illustrates a very important fact about this debate. Much of what is claimed as observable science is really just interpretation of the facts with a Uniformitarian paradigm in mind. In the scenario cited above, and in other cases catastrophic flooding was responsible for the geologic features that were once credited to uniformitarianism. With that in mind what are you using for a criteria of "flood like" layers?

The Yellowstone area is a wonderful example. There are huge volcanic layers interspersed with sedimentary layers. These sedimentary layers can be quite thick as well - sometimes with large petrified forests. The standard geologic theory is that the sedimentary layers were layed down over long periods - sometimes millions of years - interspersed with very large volcanic eruptions.

Rapid deposition of these petrified forests creates a serious problem in your timeline. The explanation already offered to you, which you seem to misunderstand, centers around these trees being dropped into the strata vertically. A global flood would have created this effect as the rising water level displaced the vegetation. The condition the trees were in supports this idea that they were deposited rapidly. They lacked root systems, bark, and branches, "in-situ" trees would have retained many of these features. It's also interesting to note that many of these petrified forests extend into the next level of forest above. That is problematic if these layers of sediment are laid down over long periods.

#17 Al650

Al650

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 03:36 PM

Polystrate trees passing through many layers that supposedly took thousands of years, if not much longer to form, raises issues about current geological dating methods.

Also, a large body of water has recently been discovered underground in China:

http://news.national...ocean-asia.html

I also would like to refer you to this page:
http://amazingdiscov...-the-flood.html


If your intent is to find alternate information, then you've come to the right place. Part of the goal is to look into information that most would find anomalous. However, there is the obvious acknowledgement that God moved throughout history. I believe that fact needs to be part of the discussion as well.


God bless,
Al

#18 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2007 - 06:13 PM

That's simply not true. While Uniformitarianism is still the prevailing principle in modern geology, much of what the 19th Century catastrophists advocated has been confirmed today. The formation of the channeled scabland in eastern Washington was one such event that contributed to this.

View Post


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

Do you really want to use the Scabland's of eastern Washington as evidence of a young earth? Your own link describes the standard geological theory. Yes, it is accepted that there was a pretty large flood when the glaciers retreated that drained a large lake fairly quickly. However, underneath the scabland is several thousand feet of alternating lava flows and sediment. The top of the scabland geologic column is a truely massive flood basalt (a lava flow) that covered most of Washington and Oregon. Given the types of lava and the size of the flow, it is estimated that it took 10 to 15 million years to lay that down.

Posted Image


http://en.wikipedia....a_River_Plateau

"During late Miocene and early Pliocene times, one of the largest flood basalts ever to appear on the earth's surface engulfed about 63,000 square miles (160,000 km²) of the Pacific Northwest, forming a large igneous province (the Columbia River Basalt Group). Over a period of perhaps 10 to 15 million years lava flow after lava flow poured out, eventually accumulating to a thickness of more than 6,000 feet (1.8 km). As the molten rock came to the surface, the earth's crust gradually sank into the space left by the rising lava.

The subsidence of the crust produced a large, slightly depressed lava plain now known as the Columbia Basin or Plateau. The ancient Columbia River was forced into its present course by the northwesterly advancing lava. The lava, as it flowed over the area, first filled the stream valleys, forming dams that in turn caused impoundments or lakes. Entities that have been found in these lake beds are fossil leaf impressions, petrified wood, fossil insects, and bones of vertebrate animals."

So you want all these lava flows with alternating sedimentary layers to be layed down before the flood that caused the Scabland?

Can you explain how flood theory accounts for these tremendous lava flows? When were they layed down? Remember, these are underneath the scablands.

I think this comment illustrates a very important fact about this debate. Much of what is claimed as observable science is really just interpretation of the facts with a Uniformitarian paradigm in mind. In the scenario cited above, and  in other cases [/url]catastrophic flooding was responsible for the geologic features that were once credited to uniformitarianism. With that in mind what are you using for a criteria of "flood like" layers?

View Post


Lava flows are pretty easy to identify. And the word "flood basalts" does not imply water was involved. We can go into the details of other layers that are not "flood like" - Salt layers, Coral reefs etc, but lava flows are the most obvious.

Rapid deposition[/url] of these petrified forests creates a serious problem in your timeline. The explanation already offered to you, which you seem to misunderstand. ..

View Post


I understand the point they are trying to make about how these trees were layed down. My point is that it does not matter. Whether they were buried quickly or slowly or floated there or grew there, Flood theory fails to explain the alternating lava and sediment beneath these trees.

Do you understand that?

Lava flow
Sediment
Lava flow
Sediment with petrified trees
Sediment
lava flow
sediment
sediment
lava flow
lava flow
sediment with fossils
lava flow
sediment
sediment

These alternations continue for thousands of feet below the layer with the petrified trees.

We could do the same with the scablands. The thousands of feet below do not show evidence of a worldwide flood. But if you think your theory can explain these layers - then go for it. Show me your theory.

#19 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 03 October 2007 - 01:54 PM

Given the types of lava and the size of the flow, it is estimated that it took 10 to 15 million years to lay that down.


What is the size of flow? 3 cfs? lol
There is no way to know how much lava flowed during an eruption that happened thousands of years ago.


If I showed you a 5 gallon bucket of water, you would say it took 5 hours to fill that bucket. (assumed 1 gallon per minute)

I might say it took 5 MINUTES to fill that bucket (assumed 1 gallon per Minute)

Either way we are both staring at the bucket with no way to prove how long it took to fill it.


Do you understand that?

Lava flow
Sediment
Lava flow
Sediment with petrified trees
Sediment
lava flow
sediment
sediment
lava flow
lava flow
sediment with fossils
lava flow
sediment
sediment


Like I already said, there was PLENTY of time for geological activity both before and after the flood.

Do you understand that?



Another Example.

You are making Blue Oil / clear Water Layers in a clear glass.
You turn the nozzle of the Blue oil on just dripping out, 1 cc per hour, you hold the glass under it for a couple days to get a nice layer of Blue Oil, then you turn the water onto a drip, hold the glass there for a couple days and then repeat the process, to get nice layers.

Then you hold that up and the air as definitive proof that it takes YEARS to accomplish those layers.

I call shenanigans!!!

#20 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 03 October 2007 - 04:16 PM

What is the size of flow?

View Post


There were many many lava flows. It depends on which one you want to mention. The largest flood basalts covered 62,000 square miles as mentioned in the link. The lava flows are 10,000 feet deep in some places. The different lava layers have different amounts of sediment between them (e.g., some with fossilized trees etc).


Here is a cross section showing a sequence of 20 of the flows. Each of these flows is 20 to 30 meters thick
Posted Image

There is no way to know how much lava flowed during an eruption that happened thousands of years ago.
If I showed you a 5 gallon bucket of water, you would say it took 5 hours to fill that bucket.  (assumed 1 gallon per minute)

View Post


The lava is still there. It is not that hard to calculate the amount.


This is a flood basalt - not an explosive eruption. Lava has a known viscosity. It hardens as it cools. If you told me you poured all the syrup out of your maple syrup bottle in 1 second, I would argue that it was highly unlikely. Geologists really do work very hard on these problems, with hundreds of papers but if you want to generate a new mathematical / geologic model suggesting it can happen quickly, I would love to see it.

Like I already said, there was PLENTY of time for geological activity both before and after the flood.


View Post


Wow, sounds like you are very confident in the math behind your model. I would love to see how you did those calculations. What layer represents the flood? What is your calculation of viscosity? I am happy if you give me some references if you are relying on calculations that you have read.

I am especially interested in the layer that represents the Flood.
Thanks




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users