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

#21 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:07 PM

I guess its possible, but just doesn't gel with what I think is a likely scenario. This continuous transgression and regression during the flood is just not how I see the biblical description or how such a massive flood would react.

Isn't that what would happen if the mountains ascended and the valleys descended? With all this tectonic activity going on. Even with just the fountains of the deep breaking up.

"The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of your thunder they hastened away. The mountains ascended, the valleys descended, to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:6-9)

It even seems like there were transgressions and regressions during the Permian and Triassic.(1)

(1) Sloss, L. L., "Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America," Geologic Society of America Bulletin, 74:93-114, (1963); Vail, P. R. and R. M. Mitchum, Jr., "Global cycles of relative changes of sea level from seismic stratigraphy," American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 29, 469-473, (1979).

My general argument is that each layer shows not only specific fossils, but also an entire environment suited to that category of fossils, and this is hard to explain from the current creationist flood model.

Couldn't the flood have buried different environments?

Sometimes you don't see environments being buried though. Sometimes dinosaurs are found in ocean sediments and fish are buried with birds and land creatures.

For example, fossilised in and under the basalt of the Siberian traps can be seen an entire environment that had high oxygen, high moisture, low co2 , and low methane levels. The life-forms were prospering under these conditions. After the massive basalt flows of the Siberian Traps, the atmosphere is seen to be low oxygen, low moisture, high co2, high methane and the predominant fossils are suited to the dryer environment and show signs of battling to re-establish themselves. Now this could be all written off as evolutionist assumptions, but the evidence of those environments and the evidence of those fossils does exist.

I'm not just going to write the evidence off, but I'd like to know how they come to those conclusions.

I am a complete bible literalist and believe the earth was filled with fast fossilising swamplands before the flood, and the flood covered over these pre-flood peat formations that are now coal. That is why you can see the trees still rooted into the pre-flood swamp seat earth.

Do you know where these trees are still rooted in the earth?

After the flood small reptiles and mammals dominated, those that suited the difficult dry oxygen starved environment, until the atmosphere and oxygen thickened to such an extent that these creatures micro-evolved into massive sizes (post-flood dinosaurs).

Don't dinosaurs have a completely unique anatomy and that's why they're classified as dinosaurs? It's a big stretch for me to believe that little reptiles evolved into the sauropods and theropods.

What about the large animals that got off the ark? The elephant-kind, hippo-kind, etc. Why would God have them get on the Ark to die right when they got off?

Then there was that comet that caused such earth destruction that entire civilisations like the Old Kingdom of Egypt were wiped out, the world became oxygen starved again, and most large animals were destroyed in the cometary impact. Small mammals survived best, but also micro-evolved into larger mammals filing the environmental gaps left by the near extinct dinosaurs.

You don't think the Bible would've mentioned a comet impact that would've caused that much destruction?

Again, I don't think the type of evolution you're talking about is really possible. If you're talking about smaller elephants changing into bigger ones, then maybe, but I don't think you're going to see small mammals that are obviously their own kind of animal changing into something else.

To me this explains the flood better, and according to biblical facts of a world of long life-spans existing for 1700 years before the flood and leaving behind a fossil record. Plus the evidence for the flood all exists at the P-T boundary.

The long life-spans could have also had to do with genes and them declining over time.


#!

They were also living long lives after the flood. This did go down though. I don't know how that fits with what you're saying.

I'm not sure what translation you are using , but the most common translations are more like this:

1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible

It seems like the word "returned" is there when it talks about the waters receding. As the waters were receding, they were going and returning.
http://biblos.com/genesis/8-3.htm

This was pointed out to me in a short article I read.(1) Could you please check it out and let me know what you think of their ideas? They explain it a lot better than I can.

(1) John D. Morris, James J.S. Johnson, "The Draining Floodwaters: Geologic Evidence Reflects the Genesis Text," Acts & Facts 41(1):12-13, (January 2012); http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af1201.pdf

#22 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:52 PM

Isn't that what would happen if the mountains ascended and the valleys descended? With all this tectonic activity going on. Even with just the fountains of the deep breaking up.

"The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of your thunder they hastened away. The mountains ascended, the valleys descended, to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth." (Psalm 104:6-9)

Like I said, its possible, but does not appeal to my sense of logic. It seems too many events are being compressed into one year. Its because of what is contained in those layers that makes the the odds seem near impossible to me.



It even seems like there were transgressions and regressions during the Permian and Triassic.(1)

(1) Sloss, L. L., "Sequences in the cratonic interior of North America," Geologic Society of America Bulletin, 74:93-114, (1963); Vail, P. R. and R. M. Mitchum, Jr., "Global cycles of relative changes of sea level from seismic stratigraphy," American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 29, 469-473, (1979).

Yes. I believe these transgressions occurred before, during and after the flood, you believe it all occurred during the flood, so your point here supports both of our positions.



Couldn't the flood have buried different environments?

Yes but if they are on top of one another this seems impossible.


Sometimes you don't see environments being buried though. Sometimes dinosaurs are found in ocean sediments and fish are buried with birds and land creatures.

True, like I said I believe in a flood, however compressed into the P-T extinction event.



I'm not just going to write the evidence off, but I'd like to know how they come to those conclusions


Do you know where these trees are still rooted in the earth?.


I haven't got time to do research at the moment , will look into this and give you your evidence.




Don't dinosaurs have a completely unique anatomy and that's why they're classified as dinosaurs? It's a big stretch for me to believe that little reptiles evolved into the sauropods and theropods.

I'm not sure about the biological structures of dinosaurs, the larger reptiles could have been on the ark too. I believe smaller reptiles proliferated after the flood, but the larger reptiles and mammals could have been around as well. To put the fossils in "creationist flood model" terms, after the the worldwide signs of most amphibian fossils, there is a worldwide layer of the most proliferate ash and basalt deposits that occurred in the middle of the flood, then there are worldwide signs of Dicynodont and Cynodont fossils during the flood. These are reptilian fossils more suited to a dry environment, but somehow these dryer land animals survived the initial stages of the flood and the volcanic activity in the middle of the flood, and then died towards the end of the flood.

What about the large animals that got off the ark? The elephant-kind, hippo-kind, etc. Why would God have them get on the Ark to die right when they got off?

I believe they did survive to proliferate about 600-1000 years later. But the large pre-flood amphibians died straight away because they were suited to moist environments, and the post-flood environment was dry. I don't believe God would have projected extinctions and therefore said to Noah, "leave out the Dodo and the mega-amphibians and the mammoth, they are going to die anyway". The nature of God is more to give all an equal chance, and yet keep His interventions in this dying world to a minimum (obviously except when us Christians are involved). ie after the flood nature took its own course and the wetland animals largely died off nearly immediately.




You don't think the Bible would've mentioned a comet impact that would've caused that much destruction?

The bible does not mention the ice age either, are these pre-flood humans and mammoths found frozen across Siberia? They are obviously post-flood because the ice would have been under water during the flood. So there was this massive change of weather patterns that must have been amazing and destructive to live through, and yet the bible does not mention a thing.
Very little is recorded in the Noah to Abraham period and the Abraham to Moses period. However societies and myths and entire religions across the world are very focussed on cometary events. Think about the fascination of various societies with the Pleiedes Stars, the visible source of cometary displays. Think about the Swastika, an ancient symbol of a comet. The snake symbol of the American Indians and the religion of the ancient Egyptians were all comet related as far as I know. I believe the Egyptians even used the conical shape of actual comets to top their pyramids and sometimes obelisks. The early civilisations were very comet-focussed.

Besides this, there is widespread evidence of a comet impact, including a crater and extensive widespread iridium during the period of dinosaur extinctions. In creationist flood model terms this would mean that the flood first had amphibian fossils, then a volcanic ash layer , then small reptile fossils, and then large reptile fossils and then an iridium impact layer and then the mammals proliferate. All seems too far fetched for me, why do the amphibians drown first, and then the small reptiles, then the large reptiles, then the mammals? And why do small mammals die off during the large reptile drownings, and then small mammals also die off during the large mammal drownings? And why does the flood occur before the volcanic activity? And where does the ridium layer come from, was the comet/asteroid just an added extra just before the mammal drownings? I'm not expecting you to answer all these rhetorical questions, just giving you a sense of the myriad number of explanations that the current flood model requires.

Again, I don't think the type of evolution you're talking about is really possible. If you're talking about smaller elephants changing into bigger ones, then maybe, but I don't think you're going to see small mammals that are obviously their own kind of animal changing into something else.

Well there has been changes in sizes of creatures, its possible rather than micro-evolution that the smaller and larger versions took turns to proliferate.

The long life-spans could have also had to do with genes and them declining over time.

They were also living long lives after the flood. This did go down though. I don't know how that fits with what you're saying.

Could be genes related too, however it seems that during the 1700 pre-flood years there was no deteriation in life-spans, and then after the flood the life-spans deteriated quickly and seemed to have reached current levels about 500-1000 years later. I believe the flood-related destruction of all vegetation caused a deteriating atmosphere while the new vegetation was gaining a foothold. This vegetation reached a new equilibrium a few hundred years later but at growth levels way below the pre-flood vegetation. During this whole time oxygen levels were deteriating, possibly even air pressure, and so were life-spans.



It seems like the word "returned" is there when it talks about the waters receding. As the waters were receding, they were going and returning.
http://biblos.com/genesis/8-3.htm

This was pointed out to me in a short article I read.(1) Could you please check it out and let me know what you think of their ideas? They explain it a lot better than I can.

(1) John D. Morris, James J.S. Johnson, "The Draining Floodwaters: Geologic Evidence Reflects the Genesis Text," Acts & Facts 41(1):12-13, (January 2012); http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/af/af1201.pdf


Yes the waters returned, this just speaks to me of the flood waters receding, not fluctuating, the original wording seems better according to the Hebrew.

#23 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:14 AM

It seems too many events are being compressed into one year.


Assuming a worldwide flood caused by subteranean upheavals that perhaps altered the topography of the entire planet, how many events do you think is reasonable? ^_^

#24 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:35 AM

Assuming a worldwide flood caused by subteranean upheavals that perhaps altered the topography of the entire planet, how many events do you think is reasonable? ^_^


I wouldn't say there's a definite answer for that question, when I have time to answer ChrisCarlascio's question regarding the content of the layers this would possibly highlight my dissatisfaction with the current flood model. Its not just the number of events, but the type of events recorded in each layer, entire changes to the atmosphere together with the appearance of new ecosystems suited to that atmosphere that makes the series of events impossible to compress into one year.

#25 Diapiric

Diapiric

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 01 March 2012 - 07:07 AM

I wouldn't say there's a definite answer for that question, when I have time to answer ChrisCarlascio's question regarding the content of the layers this would possibly highlight my dissatisfaction with the current flood model. Its not just the number of events, but the type of events recorded in each layer, entire changes to the atmosphere together with the appearance of new ecosystems suited to that atmosphere that makes the series of events impossible to compress into one year.

I appreciate your recognition that there is a distinct progression of ecology preserved throughout the rock record, but I'm a little bit confused by your time frame (you'll excuse my ignorance on your positions; this is my first post here). If everything preP-T boundary is pre-flood, and everything above is post-flood, what would the subsidence and sedimentation rates have been like since the flood in order to accumulate the thick post-Permian sections we see throughout the world? And how does your model account for the distinctly post-Paleozoic marine sediments preserved in the North American continental interior and elsewhere while simultaneously addressing human habitation of the same areas?

#26 itguy

itguy

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 43
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Belarus

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:30 AM

I wonder how is age of "Prometheus tree" will fit in a flood model?

Quote: "Prometheus was thus the oldest non-clonal organism yet discovered, with its innermost, extant rings exceeding 4862 years of age."
http://en.wikipedia....rometheus_(tree)

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:41 AM

I wonder how is age of "Prometheus tree" will fit in a flood model?

Quote: "Prometheus was thus the oldest non-clonal organism yet discovered, with its innermost, extant rings exceeding 4862 years of age."
http://en.wikipedia....rometheus_(tree)


Trees can have multiple rings per year... Hence there is no definate prediction of the age here. It is merely conjecture.

M. Matthews (2006), “Evidence for Multiple Ring Growth per Year in Bristlecone Pines,” Journal of Creation 20 no. 3 (2006):95–103.

#28 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:46 AM

Trees can have multiple rings per year... Hence there is no definate prediction of the age here. It is merely conjecture.

M. Matthews (2006), “Evidence for Multiple Ring Growth per Year in Bristlecone Pines,” Journal of Creation 20 no. 3 (2006):95–103.


You beat me to it gilbo ^_^

http://www.ltrr.ariz...nganomalies.htm

#29 itguy

itguy

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 43
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Belarus

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:02 PM

You beat me to it gilbo ^_^

http://www.ltrr.ariz...nganomalies.htm


(This is also an answer to gilbo)
From your link:
"Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year – called "locally absent" or "missing" for that year"
and
"Occasionally, more than one ring is grown during a year – called "false" for that year"

Those are anomalies, happens during unordinary years, and easily recognisible by professionals.
Also, as I understood from reading on subject, missing "rings" have almost the same probability as the "extra" rings.

Turns out, there is whole bunch of old threes, some ages are estimated tho (I guess they didn't want to kill a three to get better measurements), but some of them (table 1) when three age measired with one year precision.

http://en.wikipedia....of_oldest_trees

#30 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:31 PM

Those are anomalies, happens during unordinary years, and easily recognisible by professionals.


How do you know what is or isn't "easily recognisable" to professionals? This is what makes me laugh. People put so much trust in the fact that "professionals" have got it all covered, and yet there are constantly new things that pop up that overturns what they previously thought.

#31 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:29 PM

Like I said, its possible, but does not appeal to my sense of logic. It seems too many events are being compressed into one year. Its because of what is contained in those layers that makes the the odds seem near impossible to me.


That's understandable, but in another sense, it is a judgement. Look at how many things are going on in Revelations. You have impacts and all kinds of things, but I do believe that will be seven years long.

Yes. I believe these transgressions occurred before, during and after the flood, you believe it all occurred during the flood, so your point here supports both of our positions.


Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Yes but if they are on top of one another this seems impossible.


Agreed, maybe not impossible, but challenging. When you have time, I'd still like to know how they've come to those conclusions about the atmosphere and stuff.

Another thing that I haven't brought up is that, we're both speaking about the geologic column as if there really is strata somewhere that is 100 miles high, containing the entire column. I believe it would make more sense to look at each individual locality.

"Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation ... " - Leet and Judson, Physical Geology, p.181.

"The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column." - "Geochronology," Encyclopedia Britannica, p.779, (1985).

"We define stratigraphic disorder as the departure from perfect chronological order of fossils in a stratigraphic sequence. Any sequence in which an older fossil occurs above a younger one [or vice versa] is stratigraphically disordered. Scales of stratigraphic disorder may be from millimeters to many meters." - Cutler, Alan H., and Karl W. Plessa, "Fossils out of Sequence: Computer Simulations and Strategies for Dealing with Stratigraphic Disorder," Palaios, vol. 5, p. 227, (1990).

"One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood geology." - Raup, David M. (University of Chicago, Ph.D. in Paleontology), "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, p. 289, (July 17, 1981).

" ... any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory ... " - Steven M. Stanley (John Hopkins University), The New Evolutionary Timetable, p.171, (1981).

Living fossils would be topsy-turvy fossils, as well as some of the human fossils found in deeper strata that I listed on page one, but I'm sure you don't doubt that things like this exist. I'm just pointing out that we should think critically when viewing the strata and not think that what happened here also means that it had to happen in the same way on the other side of the world.

From what I've read, southern Turkey is the only place in the world with all of the geological periods represented by index fossils, but even this location has only half of the 34 types of index fossils.

True, like I said I believe in a flood, however compressed into the P-T extinction event.


What would you say about those marine and land fossils jumbled together that are not in the P-T extinction event?

I haven't got time to do research at the moment , will look into this and give you your evidence.


Okay, thank you.

To put the fossils in "creationist flood model" terms, after the the worldwide signs of most amphibian fossils, there is a worldwide layer of the most proliferate ash and basalt deposits that occurred in the middle of the flood, then there are worldwide signs of Dicynodont and Cynodont fossils during the flood. These are reptilian fossils more suited to a dry environment, but somehow these dryer land animals survived the initial stages of the flood and the volcanic activity in the middle of the flood, and then died towards the end of the flood.


The thing is, how can you be sure this is all worldwide? These different layers could have been correlated into the mental abstraction that is the geologic column. Since they find the amphibians over here and then over there, they say that this is the same time period.

If you believe that life evolved from chemicals to fish to reptiles to humans and birds, you will correlate the layers with those specific fossils in them according to that point of view. I'm somewhat oversimplifying, but that would be a general picture of what's happening.

I believe they did survive to proliferate about 600-1000 years later. But the large pre-flood amphibians died straight away because they were suited to moist environments, and the post-flood environment was dry. I don't believe God would have projected extinctions and therefore said to Noah, "leave out the Dodo and the mega-amphibians and the mammoth, they are going to die anyway". The nature of God is more to give all an equal chance, and yet keep His interventions in this dying world to a minimum (obviously except when us Christians are involved). ie after the flood nature took its own course and the wetland animals largely died off nearly immediately.


I don't think God would've left any animals out, even though he knew some were going to become extinct.

"Of every clean beast you shall take with you seven by seven, the sire and his dam, and of the beast that is not clean, of them pairs, the sire and his dam. Also, of the clean flyer of the heavens seven by seven, male and female, and of the flyer that is not clean, of them pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of the entire earth." (Genesis 7:2-3)

"Come forth from the ark, you and your wife, your sons and your sons' wives with you. Every wild animal that is with you, some of all flesh among the flyer and the domestic beast, also every creeper that is creeping on the earth, bring them forth with you, so they can swarm in the earth and be fruitful and increase on the earth." (Genesis 8:16-17)

Now, I'm not implying that extinctions aren't possible. It just seems like most, if not all, of the animals that came off of the ark survived for some time before things started to get rough for certain animals. Changing climates over time would've affected them, but before that, it seems like they were to "keep seed alive on the surface of the earth." I think they did that for the first, I don't know, thousand years or so before things started getting difficult. Which is why the dinosaur legends are more abundant the further back in time you go.

Also, I'm not sure if the mammoth was the elephant-kind on the ark. Its furry body seems to be an adaption to the ice age or something.

The bible does not mention the ice age either, are these pre-flood humans and mammoths found frozen across Siberia? They are obviously post-flood because the ice would have been under water during the flood. So there was this massive change of weather patterns that must have been amazing and destructive to live through, and yet the bible does not mention a thing.

I'm not so sure if the ice age would've been as catastrophic as an impact that wiped out most of the large animals and deprived them of oxygen. The ice age was also not global, but you do make a good point.

Some people have suggested that Job mentions the ice age:

"From its chamber comes the sweeping whirlwind, And cold from the sifting winds. By the breath of El ice is made, And the broad waters become a frozen solid." (Job 37:9-10)

"From whose belly has the ice come forth? And the hoarfrost of the heavens, who has generated it, When water hides itself as stone, And the face of the abyss is frozen over?" (Job 38:29-30)

Job would have lived somewhere around the end of the ice age, according to Michael Oard's model, but I can't be sure that that's what these passages are referring to.

Very little is recorded in the Noah to Abraham period and the Abraham to Moses period. However societies and myths and entire religions across the world are very focussed on cometary events. Think about the fascination of various societies with the Pleiedes Stars, the visible source of cometary displays. Think about the Swastika, an ancient symbol of a comet. The snake symbol of the American Indians and the religion of the ancient Egyptians were all comet related as far as I know. I believe the Egyptians even used the conical shape of actual comets to top their pyramids and sometimes obelisks. The early civilisations were very comet-focussed.


I don't doubt that comets hit the earth. I'm just having trouble believing that there was one that wiped out most of the large animals.

I always thought that the obelisks were supposed to be a phalic symbol. Not that comets couldn't have also been involved in their design.

Besides this, there is widespread evidence of a comet impact, including a crater and extensive widespread iridium during the period of dinosaur extinctions.


I believe there were impacts during the flood and that would explain the cratering in the strata. Meteorites and craters are more frequent in the upper layers than in the lower layers. This is the opposite of what uniformitarian geology predicts (because it is assumed that there would have been much more space debris in the younger solar system).

I haven't read enough on the K-T (K-Pg) boundary yet, but some have said that iridium can also come from volcanoes. Keeping in mind what I said above, about the layers being correlated from different locations, this quote makes sense:

"But if gradualism rules, why do geologists draw a line across their charts at 65 million years ago and talk about the 'Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary'? Pressed on this point from the audience, Professor E. R. Oxburgh, president of the BA's geology section, said that 'all such boundaries are arbitrary, and can be drawn anywhere you like'."
- "Sun sets on the Great Dinosaur Disaster," New Scientist, Vol. 99, No. 1373, Weekly 80p, p.606, (September 1, 1983); http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Many reject the impact theory.

"Ironically, as more scientists satisfy themselves that an impact did occur, other researchers have begun raising tough questions about whether that impact packed enough punch to make the dinosaurs disappear."
- Morel, Virginia, "How Lethal was the K-T Impact?," Science, Vol. 261, pp. 1518, (Sept. 17, 1993).

Robert Bakker, from the University of Colorado said:

"It would send up a dust storm that would chill the earth. The dust would cause acid rain that would kill the frogs, turtles and fish right away. They are very sensitive to acid rain. Big animals [like dinosaurs] wouldn't be affected as much. So the theory of a meteorite hitting predicts just the wrong order."
- Robert Bakker, The Courier-Mail, p. 3, (May 19, 1990).

Some just don't know apparently:

"Thus, the dinosaurs could quickly make use of the available ecological and evolutionary opportunities. However, they all vanished from the earth in the global events at the end of the Cretaceous. The cause poses a difficult question for which no ready answer is apparent."
- Zi-Kui, Z., "Dinosaur eggs in China: on the structure and evolution of eggshells," Dinosaur Eggs and Babies, p. 197, K. Carpenter, K.F. Hirsch and J.R. Horner (eds), (Cambridge University Press, London, 1994).

In creationist flood model terms this would mean that the flood first had amphibian fossils, then a volcanic ash layer , then small reptile fossils, and then large reptile fossils and then an iridium impact layer and then the mammals proliferate. All seems too far fetched for me, why do the amphibians drown first, and then the small reptiles, then the large reptiles, then the mammals? And why do small mammals die off during the large reptile drownings, and then small mammals also die off during the large mammal drownings? And why does the flood occur before the volcanic activity? And where does the ridium layer come from, was the comet/asteroid just an added extra just before the mammal drownings? I'm not expecting you to answer all these rhetorical questions, just giving you a sense of the myriad number of explanations that the current flood model requires.


I think my answers can be found in what I wrote above. These are all good questions and I'd like to continue having this discussion, because I want to know how the flood truly affected the earth. You make great points and I may be wrong, but I'm just wondering what you think of the things I pointed out above.

Could be genes related too, however it seems that during the 1700 pre-flood years there was no deteriation in life-spans, and then after the flood the life-spans deteriated quickly and seemed to have reached current levels about 500-1000 years later. I believe the flood-related destruction of all vegetation caused a deteriating atmosphere while the new vegetation was gaining a foothold. This vegetation reached a new equilibrium a few hundred years later but at growth levels way below the pre-flood vegetation. During this whole time oxygen levels were deteriating, possibly even air pressure, and so were life-spans.


Why do you believe the oxygen levels and air pressure were greater in the past? Is it just because of the long life-spans or something in the strata? I agree that the plants were a lot bigger in the past. You make a good point that the life-spans started to drop off after the flood, so it does seem like something in the environment changed.

Yes the waters returned, this just speaks to me of the flood waters receding, not fluctuating, the original wording seems better according to the Hebrew.


I don't know much about Hebrew, but I think the authors of that article make a good case. Some translators agree with what they said, because the Bible I have, used that wording before I read the article. In any case, you believe there were transgressions and regressions during the flood, so there's no point in debating the Hebrew.

If everything preP-T boundary is pre-flood, and everything above is post-flood, what would the subsidence and sedimentation rates have been like since the flood in order to accumulate the thick post-Permian sections we see throughout the world? And how does your model account for the distinctly post-Paleozoic marine sediments preserved in the North American continental interior and elsewhere while simultaneously addressing human habitation of the same areas?


I was also wondering this. It seems like there would have to be a lot of sedimentation going on before and after the flood, at rates we don't see today. Which is entirely possible. I believe there were some residual catastrophes after the flood, but I'd like to know how NewPath accounts for the extensive deposits before the P-T boundary.

(This is also an answer to gilbo)
From your link:
"Occasionally, a ring isn't grown during a year – called "locally absent" or "missing" for that year"
and
"Occasionally, more than one ring is grown during a year – called "false" for that year"

Those are anomalies, happens during unordinary years, and easily recognisible by professionals.
Also, as I understood from reading on subject, missing "rings" have almost the same probability as the "extra" rings.

Turns out, there is whole bunch of old threes, some ages are estimated tho (I guess they didn't want to kill a three to get better measurements), but some of them (table 1) when three age measired with one year precision.

http://en.wikipedia....of_oldest_trees


Maybe because of environmental factors or other factors, trees grew faster in the past and produced rings faster than they do today? I really would like to read more about tree rings. I haven't really had the time, but if you'd like to read some more perspectives on the subject from people who believe the Bible, here you go:

http://www.answersin...ristlecone-pine
http://creationwiki....endrochronology
http://creationwiki....n_grow_per_year
http://creationwiki....than_4900_years

#32 itguy

itguy

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 43
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Belarus

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:02 PM

How do you know what is or isn't "easily recognisable" to professionals? This is what makes me laugh. People put so much trust in the fact that "professionals" have got it all covered, and yet there are constantly new things that pop up that overturns what they previously thought.


Because its the same people who discovered "multiple/missing rings" phenomena.

#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:51 PM

You beat me to it gilbo ^_^

http://www.ltrr.ariz...nganomalies.htm


:yes: :P

#34 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:35 PM

Because its the same people who discovered "multiple/missing rings" phenomena.


According to creationwiki:

" ... the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old.

Both extra and missing rings are detected by comparisons with other trees. This is a somewhat subjective process, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. The fact that there can be extra rings and missing rings only increases the subjectiveness of dendrochronology. ...

Furthermore, conventional dendrochronology does not consider the after effects of the Genesis Flood. Climate instabilities immediately after the Flood would probably have resulted in additional rings across the entire dendrochronological record."

http://creationwiki....n_grow_per_year


"The extension of tree rings beyond living trees is not as objective as often thought. It turns out that there are reasons why such extensions are questionable.
  • There is a good degree of subjectivity in matching tree rings.
  • Ring patterns are not unique to one set of rings even in the same tree.
  • The core of a tree is often off center, resulting from variations in the thickness of rings as they go around the tree.
  • Trees can have rings that don't go all the way around the tree.
  • Sometimes a tree's ring pattern can be sufficiently chaotic that there is no constant ring pattern. This chaos may not be evident in relatively small samples of the tree."
http://creationwiki....than_4900_years

Here's a link to the article gilbo12345 posted: http://creation.com/...20_3_95-103.pdf

#35 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:41 PM

Because its the same people who discovered "multiple/missing rings" phenomena.


So what??? We only know what they have discovered, not what they haven't.

Do you know that every tree ring anomoly has been accounted for?

Do we have a detailed record of every event backwards for thousands of years that might have had an effect on tree rings?

If scientists can't even agree on what is happening with the climate and the environment today, then what makes you think they know all there is to know about it thousand of years back?

#36 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:34 AM

I appreciate your recognition that there is a distinct progression of ecology preserved throughout the rock record, but I'm a little bit confused by your time frame (you'll excuse my ignorance on your positions; this is my first post here). If everything preP-T boundary is pre-flood, and everything above is post-flood, what would the subsidence and sedimentation rates have been like since the flood in order to accumulate the thick post-Permian sections we see throughout the world? And how does your model account for the distinctly post-Paleozoic marine sediments preserved in the North American continental interior and elsewhere while simultaneously addressing human habitation of the same areas?


I'm still learning my own position so don't worry I'm ignorant about it too, lol.
I believe the flood layer does extend backwards into the "Permian" but not much further back than that, and the "early Triassic" is all post-flood.

I know nothing about sedimentation rates, could you point to some specific location where the sedimentary deposits look too extensive for a post-flood 4300 year period?

I'm not sure of the marine environment in the interior, but to me it just shows that there was one after the flood, which later drained or dried and then humans settled the area once it dried? I don't see how that would contradict my position, a lot of areas would have retained flood waters when the flood waters receded if the drainage was not sufficient.

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

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

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:43 AM

I'm still learning my own position so don't worry I'm ignorant about it too, lol.
I believe the flood layer does extend backwards into the "Permian" but not much further back than that, and the "early Triassic" is all post-flood.

I know nothing about sedimentation rates, could you point to some specific location where the sedimentary deposits look too extensive for a post-flood 4300 year period?

I'm not sure of the marine environment in the interior, but to me it just shows that there was one after the flood, which later drained or dried and then humans settled the area once it dried? I don't see how that would contradict my position, a lot of areas would have retained flood waters when the flood waters receded if the drainage was not sufficient.


Want to see something interesting? Take only the fossils that live in water part of the column. In other words cut out the land animal part. Then take and but it up to a picture of water that the same height. What you will notice is that each fossil is buried right where it live in the waters. Bottom dwellers are at the bottom. Mid dwellers are in the middle. And the top dwellers are at the top. Only a flood that buried them quickly would have placed them buried right in their habitat.

It reminds me of Pompeii volcano incident where everyone was killed and buried in ash right where they were.

Posted Image

So was all the aquatic life during the flood.

#38 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:26 AM

Furthermore, conventional dendrochronology does not consider the after effects of the Genesis Flood. Climate instabilities immediately after the Flood would probably have resulted in additional rings across the entire dendrochronological record


Due to my own particular theory on the flood, my sequence of events matches that of evolutionists very closely except with differing timescales. I believe catastrophic plate tectonics caused Pangea to split during the flood and North America has moved away from the tropics for 4300 years, but with more rapid movements soon after the flood. Thus the Bristlecone Pine trees were in a bi-annual rainfall area for 500 years before that area of North America moved out the tropics. Thus for the first 500 years after the flood the rings are bi-annual, thereafter showing annual tree rings. The reason for these trees' survival is that the altitude of the trees kept the climate relatively consistent despite the changes in latitude when North America drifted north. Its mainly the rainfall patterns that differed between the tropics and the current more northern latitudes.

#39 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

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

Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:39 AM

Want to see something interesting? Take only the fossils that live in water part of the column. In other words cut out the land animal part. Then take and but it up to a picture of water that the same height. What you will notice is that each fossil is buried right where it live in the waters. Bottom dwellers are at the bottom. Mid dwellers are in the middle. And the top dwellers are at the top. Only a flood that buried them quickly would have placed them buried right in their habitat. It reminds me of Pompeii volcano incident where everyone was killed and buried in ash right where they were. Posted Image So was all the aquatic life during the flood.


That's one possible explanation for the layers. And that only explains the marine layers, the land based animals show no such consistency. You have amphibians first which fits in with your lowest-first theory, but then you have a small reptile layer followed by a large reptile layer followed by a large mammal layer followed by a small mammal layer. In these layers you have small mammals nearly right through these layers. I cannot think of any sedimentation model or rate of drowning model or rate of running up hills model that would explain the various categories found in relative (not complete) consistency in layers throughout the world. Maybe there is an explanation? Maybe the drowned little mammal fossils (shrews and rats) found with the drowned dinosaur fossils were slow runners and these dinosaurs were also slow runners. Yet the drowned little mammals in the large mammal layers were faster and only drowned when the hills were covered? Maybe, but they look like the same types to me, little shrews and rats throughout the layers, that for some reason drowned regularly, yet the little reptiles and large reptiles and large mammals drowned in sequence?? Do large mammal carcasses float for longer than large reptile carcasses? Maybe they do, I don't know, but why are the small mammal fossils everywhere except during the small reptile drownings?

There are other explanations for the marine layers, there was 1700 years of fossilisation in the oceans as sediments moved there before the flood. You find arthropods fossilised there in soils that show a high sulfuric content and low oxygen. It appears that when God created marine life, HE created arthropods where they would flourish, sulfuric and anoxic oceans, fish would have died in the earliest oceans. This is why you have a clear trilobite layer followed by a fish layer, trilobites flourished in oceans , fish did not. To explain why "sulfuric anoxic" sediments fossilised trilobites first is yet another challenge to the current flood model. A trilobite layer does not prove evolution, it just proves that the early oceans were sulfuric, fish must have lives in non-sulfuric patches, or in inland seas of which there were many before the flood.

#40 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:42 AM

Due to my own particular theory on the flood, my sequence of events matches that of evolutionists very closely except with differing timescales. I believe catastrophic plate tectonics caused Pangea to split during the flood and North America has moved away from the tropics for 4300 years, but with more rapid movements soon after the flood. Thus the Bristlecone Pine trees were in a bi-annual rainfall area for 500 years before that area of North America moved out the tropics. Thus for the first 500 years after the flood the rings are bi-annual, thereafter showing annual tree rings. The reason for these trees' survival is that the altitude of the trees kept the climate relatively consistent despite the changes in latitude when North America drifted north. Its mainly the rainfall patterns that differed between the tropics and the current more northern latitudes.


That sounds pretty good. My only problem with the catastrophic plate tectonics is the heat problem. I still usually imagine the flood happening like that though, but it bothers me, because there's already enough heat going on with the accelerated decay.

That's one possible explanation for the layers. And that only explains the marine layers, the land based animals show no such consistency. You have amphibians first which fits in with your lowest-first theory, but then you have a small reptile layer followed by a large reptile layer followed by a large mammal layer followed by a small mammal layer. In these layers you have small mammals nearly right through these layers. I cannot think of any sedimentation model or rate of drowning model or rate of running up hills model that would explain the various categories found in relative (not complete) consistency in layers throughout the world. Maybe there is an explanation? Maybe the drowned little mammal fossils (shrews and rats) found with the drowned dinosaur fossils were slow runners and these dinosaurs were also slow runners. Yet the drowned little mammals in the large mammal layers were faster and only drowned when the hills were covered? Maybe, but they look like the same types to me, little shrews and rats throughout the layers, that for some reason drowned regularly, yet the little reptiles and large reptiles and large mammals drowned in sequence?? Do large mammal carcasses float for longer than large reptile carcasses? Maybe they do, I don't know, but why are the small mammal fossils everywhere except during the small reptile drownings?


What did you think of my explanation above? The rock correlation and how the majority of the column may just be subjective.





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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users