Christian Creationism

[kuboes1831]

in the guidelines Dee DEe said that Christian Creationists (YEC and OEC) can use this Applied Protology forum.

Surely all Christians must by definition be theists and CREATIONISTS whether or not they accept that evolution has an important role. It is very wrong to use a term like creationist to imply that vast numbers of Christians (especially those who have a scientific background) are not creationist and thus dont beleive in creation.

Can people stop using terms like ceationism or theism to exclude fellow christians from the true fold of Christ. It is not much better than Socrates Churchians.

As I beleive God is creator of all, I am a CREATIONIST

[Lion]

I am also a christian.

Rev. 14:6 ¶ And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;
Rev. 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

I believe that the message of the angel is a message for our time, worship him that made everything. The judgement is come.

The teaching of evolution is so prevalent hardly anyone believes the Genesis story any more. I’ve done a lot of study on the flood, in case you are interested.

[kuboes1831]

I am also a christian.

Rev. 14:6 ¶ And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;
Rev. 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

I believe that the message of the angel is a message for our time, worship him that made everything. The judgement is come.

The teaching of evolution is so prevalent hardly anyone believes the Genesis story any more. I’ve done a lot of study on the flood, in case you are interested.

So, what are you trying to say?

[shunyadragon]

in the guidelines Dee DEe said that Christian Creationists (YEC and OEC) can use this Applied Protology forum.

Surely all Christians must by definition be theists and CREATIONISTS whether or not they accept that evolution has an important role. It is very wrong to use a term like creationist to imply that vast numbers of Christians (especially those who have a scientific background) are not creationist and thus dont beleive in creation.

Can people stop using terms like ceationism or theism to exclude fellow christians from the true fold of Christ. It is not much better than Socrates Churchians.

As I beleive God is creator of all, I am a CREATIONISTDefinitions are sometimes difficult to sort out. I think Dee Dee described and seperated the two subjects headings reasonably well. Careful reading of the guidelines reveals there is no intension of Exclusion.

The definitions are somewhat complicated by the fact that some Christians do not believe other religions are theistic.

To make the defintions clearer you need to use more words. For example:

Scientific Creationist (SC) - Believes the creation stories in the Bible are literally true and supported by science. This view may believe that science has a limited conditional ability to understand the history of the universe.

Fideist, Literal Creationist (LC) - Believes the creation stories in the Bible are literally true and Science is not capable of understanding the history of creation.

Theistic Evolutionist (TE) - Believes the history of the universe and evolution were created by God very much the way science has discovered the process. Charles Darwin and I are TE.

Intelligent Design (ID) - Believes the history of the universe and evolution were created by God very much the way science has discovered the process, but remains highly critical of evolution and maintains that direct intervention by God is required to make evolution work, especially in terms of natural selection and the role of genetic mutations.

Old Earth Creationist (OEC) - (TE + ID)

Young Earth Creationist (YEC) - (SC + LC)

Extraterrestial Origins (EO) - Believes the history of the universe and evolution are somewhat the way science has discovered the process, but the actual origins of life or humanity itself is extraterrestrial. This view sort of yes/no theistic in belief.

[shunyadragon]

I am also a christian.

Rev. 14:6 ¶ And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;
Rev. 14:7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

I believe that the message of the angel is a message for our time, worship him that made everything. The judgement is come.

The teaching of evolution is so prevalent hardly anyone believes the Genesis story any more. I’ve done a lot of study on the flood, in case you are interested.I wish this were true, but unfortunately almost half of the population surveyed in the US supports the literal Biblical view of Creation. Of course the same polls indicate that the education level of the believers has a strong influence on belief. The less educated people are the more likely they are to believe in a literal Biblical Creation. For those that have college degrees, the level of science in their education is a significant factor.

Over 95% of those with a degree in science support evolution in some way. Over 99% of those with a degree directly related to evolution like geology and genetics.

Your comments on the flood need more clarification. 'Study' can mean different things. If your study is in science it would be clear that a world flood is not supported by scientific evidence. The only support for a world flood is in myths and legends along with other mythical creatures. It has been discussed many times on Tweb threads.

[CatholicSage]

I wish this were true, but unfortunately almost half of the population surveyed in the US supports the literal Biblical view of Creation. Of course the same polls indicate that the education level of the believers has a strong influence on belief. The less educated people are the more likely they are to believe in a literal Biblical Creation. For those that have college degrees, the level of science in their education is a significant factor.


Hmmm...well, when the biology textbook essentially states that there was no such thing as biology before Darwin came around, I think that would cross the line between education and dogmatism. I'm in such a biology course at the moment, and I find it rather funny to hear that evolution is the inalienable foundation of biology.

[shunyadragon]

Hmmm...well, when the biology textbook essentially states that there was no such thing as biology before Darwin came around, I think that would cross the line between education and dogmatism. I'm in such a biology course at the moment, and I find it rather funny to hear that evolution is the inalienable foundation of biology.
Misinformation is a terrible corruption of the reality of science. Modern biology began with Linnaea's Systema Natura and the works of Antoine Lament de Jussieu. The modern classification system not evolution is considered the hallmark and beginning of Modern biology.

Science does not consider evolution 'the inalienable foundation of biology' or 'there was no such thing as biology before . . .' Please quote the text and not your opinion of it. Science and scientists (99+% of life scientists) consider evolution inseperable from the life sciences. The apologist's myth of seperating 'origins' sciences from other sciences is not accepted by these scientists.

Before you attack something or call it dogmatism, get your facts straight.

The essential factor of 'Dogmatism' is that it is not subject to change. Biology and evolution have been subject to change throughout history. The dogmatism of 'Apologist Creationism' has not changed since before the inquisition. You might check out what St. Augustine had to say about taking the work of secular scientists into consideration.

[brett]

...I think that would cross the line between education and dogmatism....

I was just thinking the same thing (or at least along the same lines). Let's face it, our educational facilities have unfortunately become centers of indoctrination especially in the area of politics which of course spills over into theology. If you hammer the concept of "no God" and liberalism into a child long enough, it's much easier for him to believe in a naturalistic explanation of origins, rather than a miraculous one. But the education itself probably has very little to do with that outcome.

[CatholicSage]

Misinformation is a terrible corruption of the reality of science. Modern biology began with Linnaea's Systema Natura and the works of Antoine Lament de Jussieu. The modern classification system not evolution is considered the hallmark and beginning of Modern biology.

Science does not consider evolution 'the inalienable foundation of biology' or 'there was no such thing as biology before . . .' Please quote the text and not your opinion of it.


I am referring to the text, if not quoting it exactly. In the introductory chapter there is not a word about Linnaeus, but there is an absurd amount of references to Darwin.



Science and scientists (99.9+% of life scientists) consider evolution inseperable from the life sciences.


"Science" does not have an opinion on anything, only scientists do. And while it is true that evolution cannot be removed from the life sciences, it is equally true that the life sciences can be separated from evolution. I may have misread, but my textbook seemed to imply that the latter is false.



The apologist's myth of seperating 'origins' sciences from other sciences is not accepted by these scientists.


Do you really not see a difference between repeatedly experimenting to discover the natural laws and building blocks of the universe and using that knowledge to interpret other discoveries in an attempt to learn about individual events in the past?



Before you attack something or call it dogmatism, get your facts straight.


:ahem: I hardly think you're in a position to correct me about what my biology textbook says.



The essential factor of 'Dogmatism' is that it is not subject to change. Biology and evolution have been subject to change throughout history. The dogmatism of 'Apologist Creationism' has not changed since before the inquisition. You might check out what St. Augustine had to say about taking the work of secular scientists into consideration.

Another essential factor of dogmatism is the silencing of skepticism and questions. That's the factor I was using.

[George Murphy]

Misinformation is a terrible corruption of the reality of science. Modern biology began with Linnaea's Systema Natura and the works of Antoine Lament de Jussieu. The modern classification system not evolution is considered the hallmark and beginning of Modern biology.Historically this is accurate, though of course one can't really pinpoint the beginning of a science. But there's an important distinction between a classification scheme & a theory that explains why that scheme works, & it's the latter that's more fundamental. Evolution helps us to understand why there are the relations between different species &c that Linnaeus discerned. In the same way, the periodic table is important but it's quantum theory that explains why there are the regularities that are displayed in Mendeleev's scheme.

Some evolutionary scientists go overboard by suggesting that biology can't be done without understanding evolution, but it is true that it's evolution that makes it possible to see the whole field as a reasonably coherent whole.

Shalom,
George

[geochron]

Do you really not see a difference between repeatedly experimenting to discover the natural laws and building blocks of the universe and using that knowledge to interpret other discoveries in an attempt to learn about individual events in the past?



That's a false dichotomy - you're contrasting multiple observations (repeated experiments) with single observations (individual analyses). There are multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the universe is billions of years old, for instance, and no doubt new measures of its age will be developed in the future.

[brett]

That's a false dichotomy - you're contrasting multiple observations (repeated experiments) with single observations (individual analyses). There are multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the universe is billions of years old, for instance, and no doubt new measures of its age will be developed in the future.

Question: Do all scientific approaches for determining the age of the universe assume it formed naturally (as opposed to miraculously)?

[shunyadragon]

I am referring to the text, if not quoting it exactly. In the introductory chapter there is not a word about Linnaeus, but there is an absurd amount of references to Darwin.I am more interested in quotes to back up what appeared to be a very biased oppinion.



"Science" does not have an opinion on anything, only scientists do. And while it is true that evolution cannot be removed from the life sciences, it is equally true that the life sciences can be separated from evolution. I may have misread, but my textbook seemed to imply that the latter is false.Individual scientist may have 'opinions'. The body of knowledge of science and the views of scientists collectively is not opinion and it does support the the ancient history of the universe and evolution.

The view expressed by your text that they cannot be seperated is the view held by 99%+ of all scientists in the realted fields.


Do you really not see a difference between repeatedly experimenting to discover the natural laws and building blocks of the universe and using that knowledge to interpret other discoveries in an attempt to learn about individual events in the past?No and 99%+ of all scientists share my view. You may not realize it but many events and series of events can be verified by repeated experimentation can be verified. A very good example is the 100,000 lamilae layers in the lake in Japan. The formation of each layer can be observed and tested annually as to how it formed. The older layers can be test to verify they formed the same way.

Even the science to discover the natural laws and building blocks of life and the universe cannot directly verify scientific work done in the past. The have to in some ways trust the scientific observation of the past. The can repeat the work as in the example I gave above, but scientists do not repeat everything to verify their research. When scientists do research on a certain number of samples under controled conditions, they still have to assume that the results are consistent with time and distance where they cannot sample.

It is only apologist Christians who make this artificial seperation supported by only a few fedeist scientists. When the vast majority of scientists reject the fideist viewpoint over the past 150 years I see no reason to seriously consider it.


:ahem: I hardly think you're in a position to correct me about what my biology textbook says. Unless you quote your textbook I have very good reason to doubt what you say, since you obiously support a very biased viewpoint.


Another essential factor of dogmatism is the silencing of skepticism and questions. That's the factor I was using.Science does not silence skepticism or questions. If research is presented that meets sound scientific standards and peer review it is accepted. You must realized that AIG and other apologist 'Creation Science' advocates only condtional accept scientific knowledge when it may be interpreted to support their viewpoint. This philosophy is repeated over and over in AIG's articles and I can gladly quote them if you doubt this is true. They have never published any new discoveries or significant research in their own journals.

Talkorigins and other sources openly debate these viewpoints and does not silence them.

Change is still the most important criteria for 'Dogmatism' and the bottom line for apologists is 'no change'. This is is dogmatism in the purist form and not true in science.

[shunyadragon]

Historically this is accurate, though of course one can't really pinpoint the beginning of a science. But there's an important distinction between a classification scheme & a theory that explains why that scheme works, & it's the latter that's more fundamental. Evolution helps us to understand why there are the relations between different species &c that Linnaeus discerned. In the same way, the periodic table is important but it's quantum theory that explains why there are the regularities that are displayed in Mendeleev's scheme.

Some evolutionary scientists go overboard by suggesting that biology can't be done without understanding evolution, but it is true that it's evolution that makes it possible to see the whole field as a reasonably coherent whole.

Shalom,
George
My limited response was only to refute that Modern Biology somehow begins with or depends on Charles Darwin. the point is also that the works of Darwin and evolution are interwoven with many sciences and cannot be seperated from them.

I said before that individual scientists do not reflect the body of scientific knowledge and concensus of the scientific community as the coherent whole.

[shunyadragon]

Question: Do all scientific approaches for determining the age of the universe assume it formed naturally (as opposed to miraculously)?
Scientific methods (approaches) only can observe natural process and not miraculous processes that are beyond natural physical framework of existence. If science can observe, study and experiment on it. it is not miraculous. Individual scientists like Charles Darwin and I believe in TE, but that is question of faith and belief and not the scientific methodes.

[brett]

Scientific methods (approaches) only can observe natural process and not miraculous processes that are beyond natural physical framework of existence. If science can observe, study and experiment on it. it is not miraculous. Individual scientists like Charles Darwin and I believe in TE, but that is question of faith and belief and not the scientific methodes.

So the mere fact that we can look at rocks under a microscope, proves they formed naturally? :huh:

[Lion]

The conclusion you all have ignored is that there is a creator worthy of worship and that the creator has set a time when he will judge the world. He will wipe out sin and sinners and create all things new. Those who believe in Jesus will be saved saved and those who don’t will die. That is the message of creationism.

[shunyadragon]

So the mere fact that we can look at rocks under a microscope, proves they formed naturally? :huh:You do not need a microscope. You only need an education to see that the processes preserved in the rocks are the same exactly as we see taking place today based on simple newtonian physics. :eek:

[shunyadragon]

The conclusion you all have ignored is that there is a creator worthy of worship and that the creator has set a time when he will judge the world. He will wipe out sin and sinners and create all things new. Those who believe in Jesus will be saved saved and those who don’t will die. That is the message of creationism.
This is the same 'faith' statement that appears thousands of times when logical and rational arguments have covered all the bases and the apologist is caught between a rock and a hard place.

[brett]

This is the same 'faith' statement that appears thousands of times when logical and rational arguments have covered all the bases and the apologist is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Yes but you've put forth an argument that is only rational for an atheist or deist who denies miracles (defined as supernatural additions to natural processes). Yet for someone who believes in miracles, such as the Resurrection, the virgin birth, the changing of water to wine, etc., it's a completely irrational argument. In essence you're saying miracles are deceptive, therefore they must not have happened. This is just bad logic.

[brett]

You do not need a microscope. You only need an education to see that the processes preserved in the rocks are the same exactly as we see taking place today based on simple newtonian physics. :eek:

You're still dodging a question I asked earlier. When we attempt determine the age of rocks, do we assume before starting they were formed naturally?

The reason I ask is because the wine Jesus created would have fooled the wine experts of that time (and even the scientists of our time). But it would have only fooled those who assumed it was formed naturally.

[BEYONDDEATH]

Scientific methods (approaches) only can observe natural process and not miraculous processes that are beyond natural physical framework of existence. If science can observe, study and experiment on it. it is not miraculous. Individual scientists like Charles Darwin and I believe in TE, but that is question of faith and belief and not the scientific methodes.Hi Shunyadragon,

How are the fossils dated? By checking the strata? How is the strata dated? By checking the index fossil record? "Circular Reasoning" is a better name for it don't you think? I do not think that is very scientific at all.

Is the lower strata older than the higher strata? Is there other ways that strata can form? Is strata buildup gradual or abrupt? If the belief of gradual buildup is challened with abrupt (catastrophe) buildup, what does that do to your hypothesis of determining the age of strata, if abrupt strata is observable and valid tested? (Example: Mt. St. Helens eruption created hudreds of strata layers instantly).

Radioactive Dating? Radioactive dating has flaws because the uranium is proned to decay prematurely into lead, which would give false dates.(Example: Hawaiian Volcanic eruptions 1801-tested 200 yr old volcanic rocks, and they tested millions of years old instead of 200).
What do you think?

[geochron]

Radioactive Dating? Radioactive dating has flaws because the uranium is proned to decay prematurely into lead, which would give false dates.(Example: Hawaiian Volcanic eruptions 1801-tested 200 yr old volcanic rocks, and they tested millions of years old instead of 200).
What do you think?



I think I'd like a reference for the studies that show uranium decaying prematurely and the one for the Hawaiian rocks.

Radioactive dating isn't all based on uranium, incidentally.

I'll let someone else deal with the stratigraphy.

[geochron]

You're still dodging a question I asked earlier. When we attempt determine the age of rocks, do we assume before starting they were formed naturally?

The reason I ask is because the wine Jesus created would have fooled the wine experts of that time (and even the scientists of our time). But it would have only fooled those who assumed it was formed naturally.

We went over this before. The wine would have appeared fermented because it's wine. The analogy breaks down because it is not in the nature of rocks to yield ancient isotopic ages, whereas it is in the nature of wine to appear fermented.

Suppose some other technique were available to date the wine - would it have yielded a young, old, or uninterpretable age if someone wrongly assumed it formed naturally? Please justify your answer.

[brett]

We went over this before. The wine would have appeared fermented because it's wine. The analogy breaks down because it is not in the nature of rocks to yield ancient isotopic ages, .....

Ummm, not being a scientists I’ll pose this as a question. How much observational data do we have on miraculously created rocks? (sorry, I’m addicted to sarcasm)



whereas it is in the nature of wine to appear fermented.

Wine doesn’t appear fermented, it IS fermented. Nor did Adam appear old. Rather, he appeared exactly as miraculously created men are supposed to appear.



Suppose some other technique were available to date the wine - would it have yielded a young, old, or uninterpretable age if someone wrongly assumed it formed naturally? Please justify your answer.

I think the answer is, we don’t know! I’m curious if you disagree with this. If you do, is it based on scientific grounds or philosophical grounds? Please explain your answer.

I do have a feeling though the wine Jesus made would have had some peculiar unexplainable qualities, but that really doesn’t matter. It would have been fermented and fermentation takes time.

A question: Are there any unexplainable observations today, that don’t fit with the current model of the age of rocks? If yes, how are these handled?

Here’s the problem. We simply don't know what unnaturally formed rock looks like immediately after it's created. Nor do we know what unnaturally formed wine looks like (although we can safely assume it had at least some fermentation). This being the case, how can the assumptions we make about them (that they look exactly like their natural counterparts) be considered scientific?

[shunyadragon]

Hi Shunyadragon,

How are the fossils dated? By checking the strata? How is the strata dated? By checking the index fossil record? "Circular Reasoning" is a better name for it don't you think? I do not think that is very scientific at all.

Is the lower strata older than the higher strata? Is there other ways that strata can form? Is strata buildup gradual or abrupt? If the belief of gradual buildup is challened with abrupt (catastrophe) buildup, what does that do to your hypothesis of determining the age of strata, if abrupt strata is observable and valid tested? (Example: Mt. St. Helens eruption created hudreds of strata layers instantly).

Radioactive Dating? Radioactive dating has flaws because the uranium is proned to decay prematurely into lead, which would give false dates.(Example: Hawaiian Volcanic eruptions 1801-tested 200 yr old volcanic rocks, and they tested millions of years old instead of 200).
What do you think?
All these statements are in some way false and taking bits and pieces out of context as in many AIG articles.

Dating strata - The problem of proposing catastrophic buildup for the strata is that it is simple newtonian physics that only a very small percentage of the know strata could be considered catastrophic and they are not volcanic deposites like Mount Saint Helena or other volcanoes. Volcanoes erode away fairly quickly. Cone ash volcanoes virtually do not exist in the geologic strata. All we usually see is the volcanic pipe truncated by erosion. Virtually all the sedimentary rocks are sandstone, shale, mudstone and limestone associated with seas, lakes, rivers and basins just as we see happening today. Virtually all the materials in the sandstones, mudstones and most shales are weathered and abraded materials from other rocks washed from mountains and uplands then deposted much the way they are today.

Using different dating methods to correlate and date rocks is not circular reasoning.

I will begin with strategraphy only as my foundation. Other dating methods help to correlate dating, but they are not necessary.

The following are only examples.

(1) There are many basins around the world with continuous deposits that cover the complete geologic column of history going back to the Cambrian.

(2) There volcanic attoll islands in the Pacific of different ages that demonstrate the processes of the forming of the volcano, buildup of coral growth ito a barrier island and the erosion of the volcano over time. Some of these coral atolls are are a mile thick with continuous uninterrupted coral growth. This can only possible occur over millions of years.

(3) There are lakes in the world with continuous seasonal layers of deposites that can be observed forming today, measured and tested to show continuous uninterrupted deposits for up to 100,000 years as in the the lake in Japan.

The cyclic deposites of Carbonifierous environments containing coal in Appalachia are over a thousand feet thick and contain repeated cyclic layers with meandering river and stream patterns, lakes, swamps, standing forests covered by delta and sanddone deposits. Some of the river systems can be traced over vaste regions from Pensylvania to Kentucky.

The criticism of dating methods is just dishonest, bogus and misinformed. I may respond to it in another post, but these issues have been adressed many times in this forum.

[shunyadragon]

A question: Are there any unexplainable observations today, that don’t fit with the current model of the age of rocks? If yes, how are these handled?

Here’s the problem. We simply don't know what unnaturally formed rock looks like immediately after it's created. Nor do we know what unnaturally formed wine looks like (although we can safely assume it had at least some fermentation). This being the case, how can the assumptions we make about them (that they look exactly like their natural counterparts) be considered scientific?
I know nothing of wine, but Geology is my game and all the rocks and sediments of the world look very natural, therefore there is nothing that would indicate that God's miraculous methods are not very natural.

Again I believe God is not a trickster or deciever.

Of course there are some unanswered questions and unexplained observations concerning the nature of the existing stratigraphy, but there are not any rock strata that are 'mysterious, miraculous and unexplainable' based on what we see happening in the world today.

Unanswered questions and unexplained observations are handled in the same way as in all of science. Research and studies are being carried out all over the world by thousands of scientists to find the answers and solutions. Like in all of science answers and solutions arrived at are subject to change when new research and knowledge.

There are hundreds of major journals and many, many more minor journals world wide publishing thousands of articles each month based on the peer reviewed research of thousands of accredited scientists. That is how science works today. Nothing AIG or other apologist organizations can come close to the quality of this scientific research.

[geochron]

Wine doesn’t appear fermented, it IS fermented. Nor did Adam appear old. Rather, he appeared exactly as miraculously created men are supposed to appear.



Miraculously created wine is not fermented. It appears fermented in that if we were to make a similar thing by a natural process we would use fermentation. If it had been fermented, it wouldn't have been created miraculously. Fermentation is the natural process by which wine is made.




I think the answer is, we don’t know! I’m curious if you disagree with this. If you do, is it based on scientific grounds or philosophical grounds? Please explain your answer.



You forget that you, not I, are the one asserting a property of miraculously created wine - that it would fool the experts. As you have now realised, we don't know that it would have fooled the experts.




I do have a feeling though the wine Jesus made would have had some peculiar unexplainable qualities, but that really doesn’t matter. It would have been fermented and fermentation takes time.



Accounting for a mistaken age based on fermentation, but not one based on isotopes or trace elements, for instance.




A question: Are there any unexplainable observations today, that don’t fit with the current model of the age of rocks? If yes, how are these handled?



Do you mean "are there any observations inconsistent with some rocks being >6000 years old?" No.

But even if there were, it wouldn't indicate a miracle. A theory that can explain any conceivable observation can never be supported by evidence.




Here’s the problem. We simply don't know what unnaturally formed rock looks like immediately after it's created. Nor do we know what unnaturally formed wine looks like (although we can safely assume it had at least some fermentation). This being the case, how can the assumptions we make about them (that they look exactly like their natural counterparts) be considered scientific?



Nobody but you has assumed that either looks exactly like their natural counterparts.

However, when we see something that looks like the product of a natural process, it's certainly scientific to work on the assumption that it was produced in a natural process - that is what science is all about.

Science clearly cannot demonstrate that the universe wasn't created 3 minutes ago complete with memories, and that this is what a freshly created universe is supposed to look like. Equally, science can't demonstrate that the universe was just miraculously created. Do we at least both agree that seeking scientific evidence of miraculous creation is a waste of time?

[brett]

Miraculously created wine is not fermented. It appears fermented in that if we were to make a similar thing by a natural process we would use fermentation. If it had been fermented, it wouldn't have been created miraculously. Fermentation is the natural process by which wine is made.

Wine, by definition, is fermented grape juice. Therefore, Jesus must have made fermented grape juice! Otherwise he made something that merely appeared to be wine. I’ll go with the inspired text on this one.



You forget that you, not I, are the one asserting a property of miraculously created wine - that it would fool the experts. As you have now realised, we don't know that it would have fooled the experts.

No, I believe the wine certainly would have fooled those experts who assume miracles don’t happen. Can you quote where I said otherwise? As far as rocks go, I think the experts of today have certainly been fooled (especially in light of the written record). I see no reason to assume natural rocks are identical to miracle-rocks (for lack of a better term).



Accounting for a mistaken age based on fermentation, but not one based on isotopes or trace elements, for instance.

No, because if one approaches the wine with the assumption that miracles do not happen, then how else would they explain the fermentation? And my guess is the other indicators would have been off as well, but don’t know for sure. Neither do you. This is really my only point. Calculating the age of something supernaturally created would be based on an unproven assumption, namely that natural and miracle rocks are identical. Is that really a good basis to reject or reinterpret Genesis?



Do you mean "are there any observations inconsistent with some rocks being >6000 years old?" No.

No that’s not what I asked. Why dodge such a simple question?



Nobody but you has assumed that either looks exactly like their natural counterparts.

Really? So scientists (even the christians ones) don’t assume all rocks have been naturally formed? Hmmm. That’s a new one. Guess I’ll have to take your word for it.



However, when we see something that looks like the product of a natural process, it's certainly scientific to work on the assumption that it was produced in a natural process - that is what science is all about.

Another fascinating response. So you’re saying that if it looks like it’s natural, this, in and of itself, disproves a miraculous creation. I wonder what the fish Jesus created looked like?



Science clearly cannot demonstrate that the universe wasn't created 3 minutes ago complete with memories, and that this is what a freshly created universe is supposed to look like.

Thanks you! :bravo:



Equally, science can't demonstrate that the universe was just miraculously created.

More kudos!



Do we at least both agree that seeking scientific evidence of miraculous creation is a waste of time?

I would say yes. Science cannot verify nor falsify a miracle.

And this of course is where I see an inconsistency with old earth christians. They don’t believe science has falsified the Resurrection, but they do think it somehow has falsified the 6-day creation. Therefore they feel they must approach Genesis with a different interpretative framework. On a much sadder note, there actually are professing christians who believe the Resurrection has also been falsified by science. These very liberal christians (whom I don’t believe are christians at all) take the virgin birth and crucifixion as a big figurative story. Yet I’m wondering how an OEC or TE would go about criticizing their interpretative approach.

Now I do think it’s valid to attempt to show that the effects of an ostensible miracle are compatible with what we observe today. The difference, of course, is they start with the assumption a miracle did happen and then work from there. This is a moot point though for this thread.

[geochron]

Wine, by definition, is fermented grape juice. Therefore, Jesus must have made fermented grape juice! Otherwise he made something that merely appeared to be wine. I’ll go with the inspired text on this one.



OK, I think we're talking past one another here. I'm using "fermented" to mean it went through the process of fermentation. Are you saying Jesus made the wine by the natural process of fermentation.




No, I believe the wine certainly would have fooled those experts who assume miracles don’t happen. Can you quote where I said otherwise?



Yes, you believe it - the question is whether you have grounds for your belief. It's clear you don't because you also tell us there is no way to know what the properties of miraculous wine are - so in principle you can't know whether experts would have convinced themselves it was made by the natural wine-making process. They may have left its origin as an open question, for instance. "Well, we don't know how this was made but it wasn't made by fermentation"




As far as rocks go, I think the experts of today have certainly been fooled (especially in light of the written record). I see no reason to assume natural rocks are identical to miracle-rocks (for lack of a better term).



You still haven't shown that anyone does assume this!




No, because if one approaches the wine with the assumption that miracles do not happen, then how else would they explain the fermentation?



Saying "we don't know" is also an option, remember.




And my guess is the other indicators would have been off as well, but don’t know for sure.



That's my point - you don't know they would have fooled any expert (except the expert of your imagination who is strangely restrcited in his analytical capabilities). But you asserted it.




No that’s not what I asked. Why dodge such a simple question?



Your question seemed quite vague to me "is there anything unexplained?". I'd appreciate you not maligning my motives.




Really? So scientists (even the christians ones) don’t assume all rocks have been naturally formed? Hmmm. That’s a new one. Guess I’ll have to take your word for it.



Hypothesis - all rocks are naturally formed

Commentary - we know how rocks form, so if some rocks are not naturally formed we should find evidence of a different process. Brett tells us not to assume they are identical.

Test - we do not find rocks inconsistent with natural formation across a wide range of properties.

This is how science is done. Assumptions are tested.




Another fascinating response. So you’re saying that if it looks like it’s natural, this, in and of itself, disproves a miraculous creation. I wonder what the fish Jesus created looked like?



I'm afraid you've not been following. Science investigates the extent to which natural processes can account for our observations. To say that adopting this approach is unscientific (as you did in your previous post) is like saying that being law-abiding is illegal.

I explicitly said science couldn't disprove miraculous creation. I wrote...

"Science clearly cannot demonstrate that the universe wasn't created in 3 minutes "

In fact one sentence later you recognise this. So why make the comment above?

Science also can't establish a miracle since by your reasoning we don't know what the effects of a miracle are.

As for apparent conflicts with the Bible, I guess it's what one is familiar with. We have the Bible and we have the natural record. I find it hard to reconcile...

the idea that the Bible is a completely straightforward account

with

the extent to which the world would have to be constructed to look old.

It puzzles me that anyone can be certain that the being that arranged atoms of daughter isotopes to correlate with atoms of parent isotopes (for instance) wasn't speaking in a more subtle way when inspiring the Bible.

[CatholicSage]

That's a false dichotomy - you're contrasting multiple observations (repeated experiments) with single observations (individual analyses).


Why shouldn't I? Repeated experiments demonstrate clear laws and processes that presently occur in the natural world, whereas individual analyses such as the similarity between chimp and human DNA or the discovery of a fossil do not demonstrate such processes on their own; they can only have significance based on our knowledge from repeated experiments. I don't want to sound like I'm placing too much emphasis on interpretation of these individual analyses, but certainly some interpretation must be involved.



There are multiple lines of evidence demonstrating that the universe is billions of years old, for instance, and no doubt new measures of its age will be developed in the future.

Are these multiple lines of evidence composed of individual analyses seen in light of knowledge acquired by repeated experimentation? I have likewise seen numerous attempts to demonstrate that the Earth is merely thousands of years old, and I'm not sure which to believe.

[CatholicSage]

I am more interested in quotes to back up what appeared to be a very biased oppinion.


If I ever have to lug home that heavy thing, I'll give you some. Until then, I guess you'll just believe that my opinion wildly distorts what the text says.



Individual scientist may have 'opinions'. The body of knowledge of science and the views of scientists collectively is not opinion and it does support the the ancient history of the universe and evolution.

The view expressed by your text that they cannot be seperated is the view held by 99%+ of all scientists in the realted fields.


I realize that most scientists do believe that evolution is the most reliable way to explain our origins and the origins of many other things, but there is no collective hive mind called "science" that has an opinion on anything. Too often I see people throwing around "science" as an authority, which it is not supposed to be.



No and 99%+ of all scientists share my view. You may not realize it but many events and series of events can be verified by repeated experimentation can be verified. A very good example is the 100,000 lamilae layers in the lake in Japan. The formation of each layer can be observed and tested annually as to how it formed. The older layers can be test to verify they formed the same way.


That seems reasonable enough, but as I said in my response to geochron this is a case of an individual analysis being interpreted in light of present knowledge. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but it is definitely far from certain knowledge.



Even the science to discover the natural laws and building blocks of life and the universe cannot directly verify scientific work done in the past. The have to in some ways trust the scientific observation of the past. The can repeat the work as in the example I gave above, but scientists do not repeat everything to verify their research. When scientists do research on a certain number of samples under controled conditions, they still have to assume that the results are consistent with time and distance where they cannot sample.


OK, but I don't see your point with this statement.



Unless you quote your textbook I have very good reason to doubt what you say, since you obiously support a very biased viewpoint.


Everyone has a biased viewpoint except for someone who has no viewpoint at all.



Science does not silence skepticism or questions. If research is presented that meets sound scientific standards and peer review it is accepted. You must realized that AIG and other apologist 'Creation Science' advocates only condtional accept scientific knowledge when it may be interpreted to support their viewpoint. This philosophy is repeated over and over in AIG's articles and I can gladly quote them if you doubt this is true. They have never published any new discoveries or significant research in their own journals.

Talkorigins and other sources openly debate these viewpoints and does not silence them.

Change is still the most important criteria for 'Dogmatism' and the bottom line for apologists is 'no change'. This is is dogmatism in the purist form and not true in science.

I know that ideally science is not intended to be dogmatic, but scientists and possibly even textbook writers can be dogmatic.

[Starkman]

In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

Starkman

[geochron]

Why shouldn't I? Repeated experiments demonstrate clear laws and processes that presently occur in the natural world, whereas individual analyses such as the similarity between chimp and human DNA or the discovery of a fossil do not demonstrate such processes on their own; they can only have significance based on our knowledge from repeated experiments.



Experiments to determine the age of the Earth are repeateable in exactly the same way as experiments to verify Ohm's law.

If you insist there is a distinction, here's an example...

I took a sample of rock.
I irradiated it - some of the potassium was converted to an isotope of argon according to the neutron capture cross section.
I placed it in a vacuum system.
I heated it with a laser.
Gas, including argon, was released into the vacuum system without serious isotopic effects in accordance with the laws of diffusion.
Gas was ionised in the ion source, the ionisation efficiency of the argon isotopes varied in a slight but essentially linear way.
Ions were accelerated into a magnetic field, separating them by mass according to the laws of electromagnetism.
Ions hit different detectors generating electrons according with similar efficiencies.
The resulting pulses were counted.
The number of pulses detected from each isotope was ratioed.
A 40Ar/39Ar ratio was calculated.
This was taken to represent the 40Ar/39Ar ratio of gas trapped in the rock.
From which the 40Ar/K ratio of the rock was calculated.
This was interpreted as an age using the known half life of 40K.
Multiple repeats of this experiment from a variety of samples yielded the same calculated ratio and age.

Now

1. Is "the 40Ar/39Ar ratio of the rock" origins science or not?
2. Is "the 40Ar/K ratio of the rock" origins science or not?
3. Is "the 40Ar/K age of the rock" origins science or not?

[shunyadragon]

You're still dodging a question I asked earlier. When we attempt determine the age of rocks, do we assume before starting they were formed naturally?

The reason I ask is because the wine Jesus created would have fooled the wine experts of that time (and even the scientists of our time). But it would have only fooled those who assumed it was formed naturally.Your begging the question, by questioning the meaning of two words and the assumptions of science. Natural is simply the processes that we see and can test with science. Supernatural is by definition something that cannot be tested by science. Science has not found anything yet that does not fit the natural scheme of existence that science investigates. They do not have all the answers, but there are no biggies that do not fit. If science finds something significant that does not fit than the whole world will know about as the headline of the millennium.

The wine arguement does not concern me, because this ancient story, whether true or false, is totally out of the realm of scientific investigation today.

Actually I am a theist, but I consider miracles as simply unknowns and I am not concerned with proving or disproving them unless I witnessed them under controled conditions. If someone turned water into wine under controled conditions, then it would no longer be a problem for me to accept as fact.

[brett]

In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

Starkman

:popcorn:

[Soundsurfr]

In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

StarkmanSure. And could he have just manipulated everyone's mind to think that the water they were drinking looked and tasted like wine? Sure. Or could it be just a made-up story? Sure.

[geochron]

In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

Starkman

In fact there are various options. The water could have been swapped miraculously with wine rather than transformed. Grapes could have been miraculously acquired and fermentation sped up. Or the basic particles of matter present could have been transformed and rearranged. The list is not exhaustive. However, even with just these options it's not clear that the wine would be indistinguishable from natural wine, whereas Brett is certain this would be the case for some reason he seems unable to clarify.

There's some doublethink going on here, in fact. God did not set out to hide this miracle, so why would he make the wine look old in any respect other then its necessarily being wine? To be a closer analogy with the geological record, Jesus should have shown up with a load of wine on the back of a donkey and then just told everyone he made it miraculously.

[Soundsurfr]

You're still dodging a question I asked earlier. When we attempt determine the age of rocks, do we assume before starting they were formed naturally?
Let's attempt to determine the age of the carpet in my dining room. You look at the carpet and notice that the color is faded, the threads are worn through, there are what appear to be well-set stains in various places around the carpet. You note that these are consistent with what happens to carpet over time periods considerably longer than a week. The more in depth you study this carpet, the more indicators you find that point to an old carpet.

What conclusions would you draw from this? Did you assume before you looked at it that the carpet was more than a week old?

Now someone shows you a receipt that shows the carpet to have been purchased brand new a week ago.

What conclusion will you draw from that? Do you think the carpet is old or new?

[kuboes1831]

Hi Shunyadragon,

How are the fossils dated? By checking the strata? How is the strata dated? By checking the index fossil record? "Circular Reasoning" is a better name for it don't you think? I do not think that is very scientific at all.

Is the lower strata older than the higher strata? Is there other ways that strata can form? Is strata buildup gradual or abrupt? If the belief of gradual buildup is challened with abrupt (catastrophe) buildup, what does that do to your hypothesis of determining the age of strata, if abrupt strata is observable and valid tested? (Example: Mt. St. Helens eruption created hudreds of strata layers instantly).

Radioactive Dating? Radioactive dating has flaws because the uranium is proned to decay prematurely into lead, which would give false dates.(Example: Hawaiian Volcanic eruptions 1801-tested 200 yr old volcanic rocks, and they tested millions of years old instead of 200).
What do you think?

Wow! The old circular reaosning nonsense. The whole grounds for working out the relative age of rocks is based on the principle of gravity and that unless something has been forced in later, the stuff at the bottom of a pile got there first. This was first used by Steno in the 1660s when people were not sure about fossils. It was used for over 100 years and then in the 1790s Smith in England and Cuvier in France (both anti-evolutionists) found that certain fossils appeared in the same order over wide areas and from that argiued that the order of fossils gave the order of deposition. This was found to be so.
There is no circular argument as the use of fossils is dependent on having found them in a particualr order and this is dependent on the whole idea of gravity - unless of course before the flood gravity did not operate.
As a RESULT of always finding fossils in a certain order when certain fossils are found in a rock one can work out its age by comparison with what is known from elsewhere. Thus if I find e.g. certain Gryphea in some strata I can then by checking the lists of zone fossils tell you where the rock is in the geological column.
There is no circular argument but it does depend on gravity!!

The Hawaaian lavas Yes certain lavas give dates of millions. Davis Young dealt with this on p103 of Christianity and the age of the earth published in 1982 as did many others at that time. He cites an article by Dalrymple and Moore in Science 1968 where they pointed out that submarine lavas retain Argon and thus distort "dates" As Dalrymple pointed out in the early 1980s these were part of a series of tests to see where Radiometric determinations were not relaible and asked why.
This is another example of both YEC dishonesty in putting forward these fallacious arguments in the first place and then a refusal to change them when the faults were pointed out.

I would suggest Dr Death learns a little science before coming out with such false nonsense in the future.

[shunyadragon]

I realize that most scientists do believe that evolution is the most reliable way to explain our origins and the origins of many other things, but there is no collective hive mind called "science" that has an opinion on anything. Too often I see people throwing around "science" as an authority, which it is not supposed to be.

I think I was clear that 'opinion' is not an issue in terms of individuals or science collectively. It is not a collective hive mind, it is a body of knowledge that evolves over time based on very practical 'objective' facts and observations of the nature of existence. The use of the phrase 'people throwing around "science" as an authority', does not contribute to a debate. Science in general and in specific cases may be described as the authoirity in terms of the source of knowledge for medicine and other branches of science, but it is not an an absolute authority that cannot be challenged. Science comes under skeptic scrutiny worldwide every day in the research of thousands of scientists.


That seems reasonable enough, but as I said in my response to geochron this is a case of an individual analysis being interpreted in light of present knowledge. I'm not saying that this is wrong, but it is definitely far from certain knowledge.

'Certain knowledge' gives the conotation that the knowledge is not subject to being questioned or changed. Scientists for the most part would reject science described in this way.


OK, but I don't see your point with this statement.

The point is that the uniformativism of the Geologic history of the earth can be verified just as well as the science we use practically in everyday life.


Everyone has a biased viewpoint except for someone who has no viewpoint at all.

This sort of a sky is blue statement like everybody has an opinion.


I know that ideally science is not intended to be dogmatic, but scientists and possibly even textbook writers can be dogmatic.

The possibiity that individual scientist or authors may be or appear to be 'dogmatic' is different than saying 'Science is dogmatic.'

I seriously consider Edward Leakey, and some other members of his family and associates to be a dogmatic opionated a**es, but fortunately they are only a few of thousands of scientists in his field and their problem does not in the end determine how anthropology and paleontology views the origins of humanity and other primates.

[A Beautiful Truth]

The wine arguement does not concern me, because this ancient story, whether true or false, is totally out of the realm of scientific investigation today.


Yes, exactly. Brett and Sarfati should not be basing their belief in appearance of age on hypotheticals. We cannot test the wine, we do not know what the composition would be, exactly. To test the age of the earth is different, we actually have it here to test.

[Lion]

Yes, we have the earth, but scientists seem to want to date by radioactuivity. The problem with that is what method do you use? They all give different answers for the same rock.

[geochron]

Yes, we have the earth, but scientists seem to want to date by radioactuivity. The problem with that is what method do you use? They all give different answers for the same rock.

Who told you that? You can find rocks where they give different answers. There are also many rocks where they agree.

[kuboes1831]

Yes, we have the earth, but scientists seem to want to date by radioactuivity. The problem with that is what method do you use? They all give different answers for the same rock.

Get your facts straight and do not make unfounded assertions.

e.g. dates for the Amitsoq Gneiss in greenaldn give ages of c3.6 by by more than 6 different methods and a similar consistency is found for all rocks dated

I am afraid YEC attacks on radiometric age-dating do not get high makes for scientific competence or honesty.

[kofh2u]

In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

Starkman


In regard to the wine Jesus made, could not the process have been "sped up" in order to ferment the wine?

Starkman


Could the story not REALLY be about a wedding and about wine?
But, could it refer to something that Jesus did or demonstrated which was truly amazing? Something not so easy to explain, or to convince people in the immediate future just how important and amazing it was?
This would make the whole story an analogy, and a short commentary that implied what I am saying.

I mean, if we could accept such an idea as I suggest, just for the sake of the argument that follows, then my point seems both logical and common sense.

1) Common sense would tell us that a magic like trick was hardly why Jesus came to us. Magician do the water to wine thing even today. We all know it is a trick.

The point of this story is that, what ever he did as a precursor to the many things he would later do, it was very powerful and significant evidence that he was maturing into a insight that had both spiritual and practical application.

Upon the second coming, we will hardly find such a proof of his power and authority as useful.

Consider this.
Faraday did an amazing demonstration for the King of England. He showed him the existence of an invisible, heretofore unknow, "force" that could move things at a distance!

Basically, he passed a current through a wire which deflected the compass needle across the table from the wire. The King said, much disappointed, "So." The king is reported to have admonished his advisors who had him trek to the lab because the one second event eas a waste.

Of course, Farady could not find the words, had no specific insight, was merely in awe, himself, regarding what would come of this discovery. How could he foresee that radio, telegraph, TV, computers, even our own brain works on on this phenomenom? Farady just was wise enough to understand he had encountered the spirit of electricity, Electromagnetism.

And, if those who were present then had watched Farady crucified, and great effort made to hide his actual insight, maybe they would not have tried to explain to explain the actual event to an audience uneducated in even the existence of a current or a compass. Especially, if forces continued long after to obstruct and deny the whole demonstration.

[Lion]

All this arguing is just beating your keyboard and not really saying anything. The story in Genesis us mainly about how humans disobeyed God, became worse until the creator decided to end it all and start over.

I have read all the posts and nobody has addressed that part of the story. Someone alluded to a fictional book about sixteen saviours, and that’s as close as anyone got. The real story is told in John3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave HIs only son that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

The story as I see it is that many people have tales of folklore that many of us dismiss as fables, but common stories usually have some basis in fact. They may be distorted and bent out of shape, but somewhere there is a germ of truth buried there.

Now Ryan and Pitman’s book “Noah’s flood” is based on the fact that the sea level was at one time some 500 feet lower than at present and the black sea was a fresh water lake. That much appears to be fact. There was a barrier between the Med and the lake that became the black sea. It broke and flooded the black sea.

However that may be, the question remains, why was the sea level lowered 500 feet? The answer appears to be that there was a massive amount of ice in the northern hemisphere, not to say anything about the southern.

One thing about the continents, they are not the solid things we would like to think they are There is a 300 mile layer of semi molten magma called the mantle under all the continents and the seas. Sometimes the magma breaks through and a volcano erupts. The ratio of density of the magma to the earth’s crust is 8 to 7. We know that because Lava rock is heavier than the surface rock, so the crust actually floats on the mantle. This is made evident by changes in land level some of which are still rising

Some parts of the earth have been depressed by water or ice. For instance Lake Bonneville in Utah dried up and created the Bonneville salt flats and the great salt lake. The eastern shore as shown by the old shore line which is plainly visible, is 87 feet higher than the salt flats. This is not the only only place where land has risen. Most of Canada has risen by varying amounts and Norway and Sweden have risen by as much as 300 feet. Ice is the culprit here, as much as two kilometers of it, some still rising. Why should the land rise? Because the mantle gets squeezed like water when a log is put into it. If the log is removed the water refills the cavity.

So we had what the scentists call an ice age. Some parts of it still remain in Antarctica and Alaska and Siberia. I personally have seen the melting back of Alaskan glaciers in my lifetime

Which brings up the question, if there was a flood that covered the earth with water, what caused the flood? What happened? Geologists speculate that an asteroid or some astral body hit the earth and wiped out most animal life. We really don’t know, but that is a good a guess as any. Whatever it was the Bible doesn’t say. The Bible is concerned with salvation of man, so it records what happened from that viewpoint. We are left to speculate on what happened to the earth.

The Bible only has this simple statement after God had told Noah that he would blot out all life:

Gen. 7:4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”

Scientists have tried to put together the land mass of the earth as it used to be.Apparently there was a single continent quite a bit larger in area than exists today. The continents have been squeezed up to form high moutains like the Himalayas and the high areas of Asia.

Whatever the cause of the flood the shock caused the earth to assume a new position, 23.5 degrees from the plane of the ecliptic which causes the seasons mentioned in Gen 8:22.

Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
Gen. 7:12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

The fountains of the great deep burst open. Whatever caused the flood must have sent a shock through the entire globe of the earth. As we said, the continents float on a layer of semi-molten magma, so the immense gyroscopic forces of the earth scattered the broken up parts of the original continent and formed the continents the earth as we now see them.

The remnants of the fountains of the great deep exist today in a 44,000 mile long scar that runs down the entire Atlantic, circles the earth and extends north along the 120th meridian, through the sea of Cortez, up past Los Angeles and San Francisco. This scar is still active, which may explain why that part of California has so many earthquakes.. All along this scar there are submarine volcanoes that put out lava and occasionanally spout “black smokers” that emit 700 degree water. Some of these have strange blind shrimp-like creatures around them. Iceland lies astride the mid atlantic ridge which accounts for the intense amount of volcanic activity around that island.

The flood was God’s way of wiping out the wicked world before the flood. Buut he wanted to preserve life, so He preserved some animals in the ark that he had Noah build. It is not our purpose to discuss the variation that occurred since that time. The multitude of various kinds we call species probably descended from a few kinds of animals that were preserved in the ark. Nor is it our purpose to discuss details of construction. God told Noah how to build it. That should be sufficient.

Preserving life was the purpose. God knew how long the flood would last so, He planned the seasons so the animals and man would have food to eat. God would not dump a shipload of animals on a barren, water-soaked world without food. No doubt He had the carniverous animals eat vegetation for a while since there was only one pair of them.

The situation on the now tilted earth was (we assume) beginning about what would be mid April. The southern hemisphere was beginning winter but the earth was warm, so the antarctic chill had probaby not had not cooled much. The earth was entering he dark part of winter.

Noah recorded that after five months (150 days) the wind began to blow and dry up the water. That would be mid September, the begining of autumn in the northern hemisphere. We assume the continents had assumed probably their present position, having recovered most of the gyroscopic shock. The wild shock of tipping would send the continents skidding rapidly, probably miles a day.

The rotation of the earth exerts what is known as coriolis force. .this is what causes the westward wind and ocean currents at the equator. This is what causes the Gulf Stream. There is an opposite current both, wind and water, at both poles. The gulf stream flows north past Scandnavia into the arctic oocean. This was what caused shipping to have an ice free port at Murmansk, and why the Russian fleet is based here.

Now consider the situation. The earth still had not cooled from its preflood condition, and the sea was still warm. But the earth has only about a tenth of the heat capacity of water.

The warm current of the gulf stream pouring water into the Arctic ocean was an inexhaustible supply of heat. Now the arctic night is approaching with its intense outer space cold.

No doubt you may have noticed the mist rising from rivers and lakes when the temperature is low. What is happening is water vapor from the water is cooled below the dew point and fog forms.

The warm ocean water and the arctic cold causes fog and ice and
snow forms. Intense snowstorms were the result. We can imagine the result, a contnuous snowstorm. The polar winds scattered the snow all over North .America and Greenland and northern Europe. The glaciers in Greenland are mute testimony of the amount of ice. The rising of Scandinavia tells that as much as 2 kilometers of ice was there.

It is doubtful that all the ice was deposited in a single winter. The deposition would depend on how fast the ocean cooled. At the present time it would be impossible because the polar regions are virtual deserts today because the total annual precipitation seldom exceeds ten inches a year.

There is another fact which should be mentioned. There have been many finds of frozen wooly mammoths reported. The fanciful drawings of snowy scenes showing wooly mammoths. These are impossible The wooly mammoth was an elephant and had the characteristics the elephant kind, the first of which is that he drinks by drawing water up into his trunk extremely cold water besides giving the animal a stomach ache, would reduce his body temperature below tolerable limits. He requires from thirty to sixty gallons of water a day, a difficult task in arctic conditions.

Wooly mammoth skeletons are scattered by the millions along the siberian arctic shore. Evidently the frozen mammoths were wanderers that just happened to miss the cataclysm, only to get caught in the snowstorm.

There is another element here: http://all-ez.com/tilt.htm explains it better than I ever could. I have been to Fairbanks and seen the permafrost area.

All this is in spite of Geochron and his long ages rot.

[geochron]

:lol:

10/10 for artisitic impression, 0/10 for technical merit!

Better be careful slinging the word "rot" around, though - over in Natural Sciences we'd like to here more about potassium-radon dating and the unique new beta decay you've discovered from potassium to argon. Perhaps you could also tell us more about this "300 mile layer of semi molten magma called the mantle"

[Lion]

Aha, geochron, you have a hole in your education, too. You have been paying so much attention to the K-AR dating tat you neglected part of your education. This is from Google. You can verify it yourself.

How do scientists know what is in the core of the earth?

Well, we have a pretty good idea from a variety of indirect measurements and reasonings:
First, we know the overall density and mass of the Earth based on measurments of how the Earth perturbs the orbits of other planets and the moon.
Second, we know the overall density of the various layers of the Earth based upon the way in which seismic pressure waves (compressional waves created by earthquakes) move through the earth to arrive at locations remote from the earthquake source.
Third, by examining a second type of seismic wave (a shear wave, that is equivalent in motion to a back and forth rubbing of one's hands together) we know that the outer part of the core is liquid, even though it is at immense presure from being underneath so much rock. Shear waves can't travel through liquids.
Fourth, we know the overal composition of the Earth by examining the bulk chemical composition of the Sun (by examining its light spectrum) and by analyzing a class of meteorites known as Chondrites (which have similar composition to the Sun and are believed to be similar to the material from which the Earth accreted).
Fifth, we know the composition of the Earth's crust and its mantle, by examining samples of them. For the lower mantle, we use experiments of the effect of pressure on upper (shallow) mantle minerals to predict the mineralogy of the lower reaches of the mantle. We then pass seismic waves through it in the lab to see if our experimental rocks match the observations.
Six, now that we know the size, mass and composition of the whole Earth, its crust, and its mantle, we can contruct a balance sheet of materials and see which chemical elements aren't in the crust (including atmosphere and hydrosphere) or mantle that we know should be on the Earth. These must be in the core.
Seven, to aid us in our assessment, we recall that we need metallic elements in high concentration somewhere in the interior of the Earth to generate our magnetic field. Also, this metal must be able to be in the liquid state even at very high pressures.
Adding all this up, we find the core is predominantly Iron metal (Fe). We find it has a significant amount of the element Nickel (Ni, about 4%) and a light element to make it less dense (about 10% by mass). This light element is either mostly oxygen or sulfur, with the arguments for oxygen (too detailed to go into here) being more believable in general.
We can look at the composition of iron meteorites as well, which are remnants of small planetary bodies from early in our solar-system's history that segregated small cores. The composition of these metal alloys match closely what we predict the composition of our core is using the evidence discussed above.

Dr. Ken Rubin, Assistant Professor
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822

[geochron]

Aha, geochron, you have a hole in your education, too. You have been paying so much attention to the K-AR dating tat you neglected part of your education. This is from Google. You can verify it yourself.



:smile:

Again we have some options...

1. I hold down an academic teaching position in a geology department but don't know what the internal structure of the Earth is.

2. I was amused by your idea that the mantle is (only) 300 miles thick and by the phrase "semi-molten magma".

Btw, are you under the impression that the mantle is part of the Earth's core? I'm trying to figure out why you posted that particular piece in response to a question arising about the mantle.

[Lion]

Geochron, now I know why you are so hep on geological ages stuff. But tell me something. Did you ever study about the midocean ridges? What do they tell you? I mean to you personally? I have heard that the Juan DeFuca plate is sliding under the North American plate and that was thought to be the cause of the St. Helens eruption. As for three hundred mile mantle thicness, that was something I remember from some reading I did some years ago. I don't remember, and I didn't think it mattered that much. All I was intendng was that it was there and was the stuff that comes out of volcaoes.