Evo - Some more Questions (Psst George....)

[Mark_S]

George, thanks for the answer before. And the picture of Goldschmidt's Toad. Is that an example of "saltation"? (I'm a bit new looking at the theory, forgive me if I misuse a word here and there) Would that toad's offspring have the potential to share his uniqueness? Also, how does the pattern of poisonous/venomous creatures being brightly colored fit into the whole scheme of evolution? I hope you don't mind firing all these (and probably more to come) questions at you, and anybody else who wants to chime in :smile:

[AllDay]

Also, how does the pattern of poisonous/venomous creatures being brightly colored fit into the whole scheme of evolution?
Easy ... this is explained in numerous documentaries on a variety of channels. The bright colors serve as "warning signs" [think "stop sign"], or the "skull and crossbones" on a bottle of poison, if you will. Predatory animals seem to have figured out that bright colors means "no bite that one". It should be fairly obvious as to how this benefits frogs, snakes, etc that are brightly colored [and those that mimic the appearance]. After awhile, predators leave these animals alone, which increases survival and reproduction (passage of genes).

Even works for Monarch and Viceroy butterflies [both non-posonous]. One tastes horrible and birds leave it alone (after some learning). This benefits the mimic also. Same thing with certain wasps & flies that mimic the wasps. Frogs catch a wasp, get stung, spit it out, lesson learned. They don't eat wasps again. As a result they also avoid the harmless mimic. Looking like something dangerous can be a major survival advantage. If you came across a non-poisonous snake that was shaking a rattle on the end of its tail, would you approch it and try to capture it or pick it up? Why not?

It benefits both predator and prey to have the poisonous animals be "marked clearly". Makes one wonder how many people had to die before they learned "don't pet the Gila monster"?

[Mark_S]

Yeah, I had a firm concept on the purpose it served. Though in hindsight I should have mentioned that, and the mimicing fits in easily enough, but why would something evolve to give a predator an advantage in the first place? Thats more the question I have.

Also, before I go on (with yet another question) Right now I'd call myself an old earther and undecided between "creationism & TE. While Evolution has some very good evidence I just don't buy it as a complete package yet. Much like the first time I read flood geology, parts of it leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not entirely convinced that we are looking at the complete package and mostly because of the political/religious baggage that seems to accompany the theory.(Thats why I'm here and not in Nat Sci.). Anyway, I don't bring my viewpoint up to debate it, just to let you know that these are honest questions, and I'm not going to blindside you with "irrefutable proof"


It benefits both predator and prey to have the poisonous animals be "marked clearly". Makes one wonder how many people had to die before they learned "don't pet the Gila monster"?
Doesn't say much for us as a whole does it? (This "pet the Gila" was on Animal planet yesterday BTW)

[rogero]

...

Doesn't say much for us as a whole does it? ...
Could you please explain this statement? Perhaps it would help me understand from where you are coming.

R

[grmorton]

George, thanks for the answer before. And the picture of Goldschmidt's Toad. Is that an example of "saltation"? (I'm a bit new looking at the theory, forgive me if I misuse a word here and there) Would that toad's offspring have the potential to share his uniqueness? Also, how does the pattern of poisonous/venomous creatures being brightly colored fit into the whole scheme of evolution? I hope you don't mind firing all these (and probably more to come) questions at you, and anybody else who wants to chime in :smile:


I don't know what George you are referring to. I did a search on the toad and couldn't find a George who had posted a picture. I did however post such a picture. I don't want to answer for George, bless his anonymous heart.

[Mark_S]

Could you please explain this statement? Perhaps it would help me understand from where you are coming.
Mild attempt at humor, They had a show on yesterday and it mentioned all the people who have been bit by a Gila. Sometimes humans in general need a reality check.

I don't know what George you are referring to. I did a search on the toad and couldn't find a George who had posted a picture. I did however post such a picture. I don't want to answer for George, bless his anonymous heart.
oops it was you, I couldn't find the original post. Anyway, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this stuff, and I respect your theology, so I thought you could help with the question.

Mark

[grmorton]

oops it was you, I couldn't find the original post. Anyway, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this stuff, and I respect your theology, so I thought you could help with the question.

Mark


Odds are that this was a developmental problem, but no one really knows why. If a mutation produced that kind of change to a developmental program, then it would be able to be passed on to the offspring, but they would quickly be eliminated from the population by cats who could sneak up on the critter. It does, though show quite effectively that saltations do happen and that there are NO intermediates required.

[AllDay]

Yeah, I had a firm concept on the purpose it served. Though in hindsight I should have mentioned that, and the mimicing fits in easily enough, but why would something evolve to give a predator an advantage in the first place? Thats more the question I have.
It makes you wonder what came first: [1] being poisonous, or [2] having bright colors. Certainly having bright colors as prey seems like a major disadvantage. But I guess it could be dealt with if becoming poisonous was rapid.

It seems most plausible to me that the bright colors was a "flaw" that the animals were able to endure because they were already poisonous.

The first thing I would check is the habitat of the brightly colored animals. Perhaps living by brightly colored flowers [or previously living next to them] offered some selective advantage ... but I'm just speculating. Let's see what Geor ... err ... Glenn has to say.

[grmorton]

It makes you wonder what came first: [1] being poisonous, or [2] having bright colors. Certainly having bright colors as prey seems like a major disadvantage. But I guess it could be dealt with if becoming poisonous was rapid.

It seems most plausible to me that the bright colors was a "flaw" that the animals were able to endure because they were already poisonous.

The first thing I would check is the habitat of the brightly colored animals. Perhaps living by brightly colored flowers [or previously living next to them] offered some selective advantage ... but I'm just speculating. Let's see what Geor ... err ... Glenn has to say.


I don't know that I have a lot to say but one of the interesting tidbits I picked up somewhere along the way is that what we see is not always what the animals who eat these critters see. There was a show once that illustrated what the animals saw based upon what frequencies their eyes would detect. The world looks a lot different to them and so what we see as bright colors might not be bright in the UV or IR realm seen by their predators. This situation is an example of how our assumptions can turn an argument.

See http://www.lifesciences.nus.edu.sg/honorsproject/dbs/semII/Li%20Daiqin%20Hons%20project%201.doc

[Lion]

This thread is about questions on evolution and this presupposes it is against creation Mark S said this.

Also, before I go on (with yet another question) Right now I'd call myself an old earther and undecided between "creationism & TE. While Evolution has some very good evidence I just don't buy it as a complete package yet. Much like the first time I read flood geology, parts of it leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not entirely convinced that we are looking at the complete package and mostly because of the political/religious baggage that seems to accompany the theory.
------------------
I'd like to interject something I haven't seen anywhere else.
This has been an interesting discussion. I happen to be aYEC guy. I have heard all the arguments about how the flood didn’t or couldn’t have happened. My theory is that the earth as it was originally created had no high mountains,so there was plenty of water to cover the earth.

Most people don’t realize how the earth is constructed. The earth has an iron core which causes the earth’s magnetic field. Around that is another layer of more dense material. Then there is a layer several hundred miles thick of a semi molten material called the mantle. The mantle sometimes bursts through to the surface and makes a volcano. How do we know what is down there? By seismographic measurements from earthquakes. We know volcanoes are hot, and by weighing lava we know how how heavy it is.. We know the average weight of the earth’s crust. The ratio of crust to mantle is about 7 to 8, so the crust of the earth floats on the mantle. This leads to an interesting situation. I have a map published by the National Geographic Society, “The Earth’s Fractured Surface.” It shows literally hundreds of cracks in the ocean floor. There are eight major plates that make up the continents and a lot of smaller plates.

Another feature is a 44,000 mile long midocean ridge that starts between Greenland and Norway, runs down the Atlantic crosses the Indan Ocean and the Pacific. It runs up the 120th meridian through the gulf of California and the earthquake prone Los Angeles and San Francisco area. The entire ridge is volcanic, which means that it penetrates clear down to the hot mantle. Some parts of the ridge put out “black smokers,” which are jets of 700 degree water.

Scientists have tried to fit rhe continents together like a jigsaw puzzle. Some of the major parts, like Africa and South America more or less look like they might fit, so there is some merit there. As a matter of fact, there is evidence of impacts of numerous large stellar objects hitting the earth. Some of them might have caused widespread damage. An interesting study by Sager and Koppers of Texas A&M found from study of seamounts that the pole of rotation of the earth has been upset, with the north pole being located north of the north coast of Norway. This is evidence of a violent upset in the rotation of the earth. Scientists have guessed that the diinosaurs and other aimals were wiped out by the impact of some astral body. All this is evidence of some event.

So far we haven’t discussed the flood. But we start now. In Gen 6:3 is an implied threat.
Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

Astronomers have learned to calculate the motion of heavenly bodies very accurately, as the landing of planetary probes testifies. Is it beyond the creator’s ability to tell when an impact will happen? We think not. Was the earth’s axis of rotation upset? Sager and Koppers think so.

The earth is tipped 23.5 degrees relative to the orbital plane. That is the cause of the seasons. But it was not always so. God told Noah after the flood was over:
Gen. 8:22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

This is an indication that things had changed from the previous condition, particularly the cold and heat. It is an indication that the conditions before the flood were uniformly mild. What had happened?

Evidently the upset caused by whatever it was made such a large impact that it upset the earth’s balance. The earth is like a huge gyroscope spinning once each twenty four hours. Its inertia is tremendous. The effect of a sudden torque on the crust of the earth is incalculable. A planetary body sufficient to shift the spin axis of the earth would be enough to break up the crust of the earth. Remember that the crust floats on a semi-molten mantle, so the crust would break up. This is exactly what is depicted in the following text.

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 were made by the crust of the earth breaking up clear down to the hot mantle, sixteen hundred degrees hot. Water flowing into the crack would turn to steam instantly.but the volume of water would soon cause an eruption similar to those seen in Yellowstone park only many times greater. Steam under pressure exerts side pressure on the the sides of the crack something like sixteen million tons per lineal foot of crack. The steam generated would be a geyser never seen before. As the steam rose it would cool and fall back as rain. The crack would widen and eventually stop. The broken up plates slid rapidly at first and finally stopped in a new configuration.

The Americas have slid west about two thousand miles and heaped up the ocean floor to form the high western part of the Americas. The Asia- Africa land mass slid east to form the deep trenches of the pacfic rim. The sliding of the continents over the ocean floor caused volcanoes to erupt and make the “ring of fire” that surrounds the pacific.

There are other motions that took place India has slid northeast and heaped up the mountains of the China Burma India corner of Asia. The recent (dec 26, 2004) earthquake and tidal wave indicates the region is still active.

The 44,000 mile midocean ridge appears to be a remnant of the fountains of the great deep of Gen 7:11. There are other evidences of the flood, but this is enough for now.

[geochron]

Most people don’t realize how the earth is constructed. The earth has an iron core which causes the earth’s magnetic field. Around that is another layer of more dense material. Then there is a layer several hundred miles thick of a semi molten material called the mantle. The mantle sometimes bursts through to the surface and makes a volcano.



Here's a nice page on the structure of the Earth.

http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earths_structure.htm

Note in particular that the mantle is more than several hundred miles thick, and, while it flows, it isn't semi-molten.

Would you mind updating this next time you post it?



An interesting study by Sager and Koppers of Texas A&M found from study of seamounts that the pole of rotation of the earth has been upset, with the north pole being located north of the north coast of Norway. This is evidence of a violent upset in the rotation of the earth. Scientists have guessed that the diinosaurs and other aimals were wiped out by the impact of some astral body. All this is evidence of some event.



Here's the abstract...



Late Cretaceous Polar Wander of the Pacific Plate: Evidence of a Rapid True Polar Wander Event
William W. Sager 1* and Anthony A. P. Koppers 2

Abstract: We reexamined the Late Cretaceous-early Tertiary apparent polar wander path for the Pacific plate using 27 paleomagnetic poles from seamounts dated by 40Ar/39Ar geochronology. The path shows little motion from 120 to 90 million years ago (Ma), northward motion from 79 to 39 Ma, and two groups of poles separated by 16 to 21 degrees with indistinguishable mean ages of 84 ± 2 Ma. The latter phenomenon may represent a rapid polar wander episode (3 to 10 degrees per million years) whose timing is not adequately resolved with existing data. Similar features in other polar wander paths imply that the event was a rapid shift of the spin axis relative to the mantle (true polar wander), which may have been related to global changes in plate motion, large igneous province eruptions, and a shift in magnetic field polarity state.



(Note they don't suggest it was caused by an impact or even that it was a sudden event. Also of course most of the plate motion you go on to describe happened before and after the time zone of TPW. )



Steam under pressure exerts side pressure on the the sides of the crack something like sixteen million tons per lineal foot of crack.



Would you mind showing the calculation of this number and comparing it with the pressue of surrounding rock acting to close the crack?



The Americas have slid west about two thousand miles and heaped up the ocean floor to form the high western part of the Americas.



Have you compared the rocks of this region to those of the ocean floor? That would seem to be a simple test of your theory.

[Mercury]

God told Noah after the flood was over:
Gen. 8:22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”

This is an indication that things had changed from the previous condition, particularly the cold and heat. It is an indication that the conditions before the flood were uniformly mild.This indicates no such thing. If you take this passage as indicating that seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and harvest started at this point, then consistently you must also think it says that day and night started at this point. And yet, Genesis 1:5 describes day and night starting long before this. Also, Genesis 1:14 says that the lights in the sky are to be signs to mark seasons. Were there no seasons to mark until after Noah's flood? If so, wouldn't that be a sort of progressive creationism, since you have an action on the fourth day not being completed until much later?
A planetary body sufficient to shift the spin axis of the earth would be enough to break up the crust of the earth. Remember that the crust floats on a semi-molten mantle, so the crust would break up. This is exactly what is depicted in the following text.

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.That is incorrect. What you described is not "exactly what is depicted" in the text. You are reading your own scientific ideas into the text, and that's why people for thousands of years haven't thought that this passage describes a meteor impact. If you have a meteor in mind, you may be able to reconcile it somewhat with the text, but you wouldn't get the idea of a meteor from the text.

If you're going to claim to take early Genesis as literal history, you need to do better than this.

[Constantine]

Don't forget what actually happens when comets and asteroids strike the earth. It is more than a boom and a crater. Literally tons of debris is flung into the atmosphere and beyond. The comet or asteroid that struck earth 65 million years ago threw so much debris and ash into the atmosphere that it blocked out the sun for more than a year killing all the plants and 75% of life on earth.

Multiple impacts of that magnitude have happened in the past. Trying to fit them all into one flood year means that it would still be dark long after Noah got off the ark and they would have certainly parished if all the plants were starved of sunlight to death.

I myself am a Theistic Evolutionist, it just makes more sense.

[shunyadragon]

It makes you wonder what came first: [1] being poisonous, or [2] having bright colors. Certainly having bright colors as prey seems like a major disadvantage. But I guess it could be dealt with if becoming poisonous was rapid.

It seems most plausible to me that the bright colors was a "flaw" that the animals were able to endure because they were already poisonous.

The first thing I would check is the habitat of the brightly colored animals. Perhaps living by brightly colored flowers [or previously living next to them] offered some selective advantage ... but I'm just speculating. Let's see what Geor ... err ... Glenn has to say.
We tend to look at bright colors as being significant, but research has shown that color patterns and contrasts have more survival value than the colors them selves. Mimacing of the patterns is more important than the colors.

[Lion]

Thanks, Geochron, for the comment. Unfortunately, there is some disagreement on the condition of the mantle. I know when oil wells are drilled the temperature goes higher as the well goes deeper. My authorities seem to think the mantle is at least plastic, viscuous material. I think you will agree it is HOT. Heat and extreme pressure makes things plastic. The two deepest holesever drilled were on the Kola peninsula and in Bavaria. They reached 7.5 and 5.6 miles, respectively They were terminated because of heat.

Sager and Koppers did say 65 million years ago, but the evolutionary time scale K-Ar is subject to so many errors it is worthless.

The earth according to the 1999 US Geological survey, consists of basically core, mantle and crust.

We don't know for certain what caused the flood. All we know as that the fountains of the great deep were broken up. We know that water pressure pressure of 3184 PSI and 705.2 Deg F is the critical point for steam. Handbook of chemistry and physics. There are numerous Black Smokers along the volcanic midocean ridges that emit 705 degree water. the midocean ridges are volcanic.

Now 3184 PSI means a water depth of at least 6123 feet.
Est depth of ocean crust 50,000 ft -6,000 ft overburden pressure of seawater = 44,000 ft.
44,000 ft./2 for average =22,000 feet
add 6,000 sea water =28,000 ft
Multiply by .52= 14,500 psi average
Multiply by 144 to to get presure par sq ft. 2.1 million lbs
multiply 2.1 million x 44,000 = 46 milliion tons per lineal foot of crack.

This is the initial impulse. As the crack widens the impulse decreases, but that impulse was evidently enough to start the continents sliding.

[geochron]

Thanks, Geochron, for the comment. Unfortunately, there is some disagreement on the condition of the mantle. I know when oil wells are drilled the temperature goes higher as the well goes deeper. My authorities seem to think the mantle is at least plastic, viscuous material. I think you will agree it is HOT. Heat and extreme pressure makes things plastic.



Hot yes, plastic yes, semi-molten no.



Sager and Koppers did say 65 million years ago, but the evolutionary time scale K-Ar is subject to so many errors it is worthless.



I'm sorry, but a systematic study of the data shows that this statement is incorrect.



Now 3184 PSI means a water depth of at least 6123 feet.
Est depth of ocean crust 50,000 ft -6,000 ft overburden pressure of seawater = 44,000 ft.
44,000 ft./2 for average =22,000 feet
add 6,000 sea water =28,000 ft
Multiply by .52= 14,500 psi average
Multiply by 144 to to get presure par sq ft. 2.1 million lbs
multiply 2.1 million x 44,000 = 46 milliion tons per lineal foot of crack.



Consider a crack 1 km deep at the bottom of the ocean. The water pressure corresponds to the weight of water above it = 1km of water + ocean depth of water.

The rock pressure corresponds to 1km of rock + ocean depth of water.

Rock is more dense than water.

Hence the rock pressure acting to close the crack is greater than the water pressure trying to open it.

[shunyadragon]

Sager and Koppers did say 65 million years ago, but the evolutionary time scale K-Ar is subject to so many errors it is worthless.

I believe that Sager and Koppers are either using misquotes or are being misquoted. Who are they and I would like to see these quotes and try to verify them. The classic Creationist quotes are ofte partial misquotes. There is a thread on this in the Locker Room.


BAD QUOTE


"With conventional K-Ar dating, the only tests for anomalously high ages are stratigraphic control and the reproducibility of the age measurements. Unfortunately, stratigraphic control is frequently lacking or inadequate, and anomalously high ages can be very reproducible."(1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating MethodsInstitute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA)


THE ACTUAL QUOTE


"With conventional K-Ar dating, the only tests for anomalously high ages are stratigraphic control and the reproducibility of the age measurements. Unfortunately, stratigraphic control is frequently lacking or inadequate, and anomalously high ages can be very reproducible. However, with the 40Ar/39Ar step-heating method, disturbances in the samples are FREQUENTLY revealed by the Ar age spectrum ...[reference omitted]. In particular, the well-known 'saddle-shaped' spectrum...[reference omitted] is a USEFUL diagnostic tool for detecting the presence of 'excess 40Ar', i.e., extraneous 40Ar which has been included in the sample during its formation. However, despite extreme care in sampling, and even when excess 40Ar is detected, it MAY be impossible to deduce the true eruption age of a pumice unit using the standard technique."(Lo Bello, G. Feraud (1987)The Defeat of Xenocrystic Contamination," Chem. Geol. (Iso. Geosci. Sec.), v. 66, p. 61-71.)

[Lion]

We don't really know how thick the crust that forms the ocean floor really is, but we were guessing 50,000 ft. It probably varies. Also we were assuming that due to the violent upset of the gyroscopic forces due to the earth being tilted that the crack would be completely through the crustal plate. The split must have extended rapidly, in a matter of minutes, not more than an hour or so, for the entire 44,000 mile length of the midocean crack.

Because of the gyroscopic forces and the millions of tons of water pressure, The crack would tend to stay open and spread as we see in the black smokers and lava that erupts even today. The midatlantic ridge has spread for miles, and I assume at least partly along the entire 44,000 mile length.

The crack extends along the 120th W. meridian from 50 deg S, up trogh the sea of lower California through Los Angeles and San Francisco, out to sea along the entire west coast of North America. No wonder southern California has so many earthquakes.

The bottom of the sea looks like a wrinkled prune, There are literally thousands of fractures that have no other cause than the flood of Noah's day. The National Geographic map shows it.

[rogero]

...

The bottom of the sea looks like a wrinkled prune, There are literally thousands of fractures that have no other cause than the flood of Noah's day. The National Geographic map shows it.


Why do you attribute these fractures to the flood of Noah's day? What does a flood have to do with transform faults?

R

[Lion]

The flood was evidently caused by some external force that tipped the earth rather violently, ending up with our present 23.5 degree tilt with respect to the orbital plane. The hundreds of cracks in the ocean floor around the midocean ridges testify to the violence of the gyroscopic forces. We don't sense it, but the earth is traveling over 1000 mph at the equator, so there is a lot of inertia if some stellar object were to hit the earth hard enough to tip it.

[rogero]

The flood was evidently caused by some external force that tipped the earth rather violently, ending up with our present 23.5 degree tilt with respect to the orbital plane. The hundreds of cracks in the ocean floor around the midocean ridges testify to the violence of the gyroscopic forces. We don't sense it, but the earth is traveling over 1000 mph at the equator, so there is a lot of inertia if some stellar object were to hit the earth hard enough to tip it.
Hmmm..., I see. Did you or any of your creationist friends ever calculate the energy required to tip Earth's rotational axis 23.5 degrees, and how such an input of energy would be reconciled with the first lay of thermodynamics?

Also, I don't recall reading anything in the Biblical text of the Genesis Flood about Earth's axis being tilted by some external force. Certainly this is not eisegesis?

R

[grmorton]

We don't really know how thick the crust that forms the ocean floor really is, but we were guessing 50,000 ft. It probably varies. Also we were assuming that due to the violent upset of the gyroscopic forces due to the earth being tilted that the crack would be completely through the crustal plate. The split must have extended rapidly, in a matter of minutes, not more than an hour or so, for the entire 44,000 mile length of the midocean crack.

This is ridiculous, Lion. I am a geophysicist. I know how thick the crust is, I know how thick the sediment is. The basalt crust in the oceans is between 5 - 10 km thick.

An outer crust ranging in thickness from 5 to 10 km beneath the oceans to more than 40 km beneath the continents."

And, You are so wrong that this could have taken place in an hour or so. For about 15 minutes in 1983, I had access to a 900 km long seismic line which extended from Cape Hatteras almost to the mid-oceanic ridge. Laid out in my office hallway, this line went almost completely around the building. I hastily marked down the distance from the foot of the continental slope and the thickness of the sediments. Here is that record:

Sediment thicknesses along IPOD line 0=foot of continental
slope=85 miles from Core Island, North Carolina
Miles Thickness
0..........9.53 km
10.........6.26 km
15.........2.75 km salt dome
20.........2.64 km salt dome
25.........7.25 km
30.........6.88 km
35.........6.68 km
40.........6.31 km
45.........6.22 km
50.........5.40 km
60.........5.04 km
65.........4.94 km
70.........4.33 km
75.........4.28 km
80.........3.89 km
85.........3.95 km
90.........3.79 km
95.........3.74 km
100........3.67 km
105........2.75 km
110........2.85 km
118........2.59 km
123........2.07 km
127........2.06 km
134........2.30 km
140........2.26 km
147........1.93 km
155........1.92 km
163........1.83 km
173........1.83 km
183........1.61 km
195........1.51 km
220........1.40 km
245........1.58 km
270........1.43 km
295........1.43 km
320........0.63 km
345........0.58 km
370........0.57 km
395........0.58 km
420........1.00 km
445........0.60 km
470........0.50 km
495........0.83 km
520........0.94 km
545........0.43 km
565........0.53 km
Ken Bayer, U.S.G. S. Personal Communication 9-22-83.

I didn't write the numbers down past this point because it was faulted, which caused thicker sediments in the grabens and thinner sediments on the horsts. You can see this in the last few measurements. At the actual mid-oceanic ridge there was no sediment.

Now, the thing you can see is that the sedimentary column thins dramatically from the foot of the continental shelf out to near the mid-oceanic ridge. The important thing is the pattern of sedimentation which is seen on that line shot by the USGS. Each sedimentary layer downlaps onto the oceanic crust. The uppermost sedimentary layers downlap the farthest offshore. This pattern is important.

[attachment=1]

The downlap points a,b,c,d,e are the points which mark where the mid-oceanic ridge was when that sediment was deposited. Remember I noted that there is no sediment on top of the oceanic ridge today. Thus one can see that the oldest sediment (that which is lowest) has a downlap which marks the place when the mid-oceanic ridge was closest to the continent. (my diagram isn't complete because there are downlapped sediments right at the foot of the continental slope).

Now, if the entire ocean was opened in an hour, the pattern of the sediments would be different. They would be like this:

[attachment=2]

Each layer would cover the entire ocean, no matter how thinly at the ridge. This is because the entire ocean would be open to sedimentation after that first hour. But that isn't what we see. Thus your assertion (and that is what it is because it is based upon no data and no knowledge) is wrong.

It really would be best if you would use data, actual hard data to back up your assertions.

[grmorton]

The flood was evidently caused by some external force that tipped the earth rather violently, ending up with our present 23.5 degree tilt with respect to the orbital plane. The hundreds of cracks in the ocean floor around the midocean ridges testify to the violence of the gyroscopic forces. We don't sense it, but the earth is traveling over 1000 mph at the equator, so there is a lot of inertia if some stellar object were to hit the earth hard enough to tip it.

There is NO evidence of this. You are living in a make-believe world.


"Still another suggestion has been made by kelly and Dachille
(1953), Gallant (1963) and Dachille (1963), that obliquity
changes could result from the impact of large meteorites.
Certainly the principle is valid, but it is a question of scale,
and geological evidence. Dachille correctly points out that even
under the most favourable conditions of impact with an astroid
the size of Juno (190 km diameter) the resultant axis change
would be only 0'.02. There is no evidence of Phanerozoic
astroblemes of sufficient size although such could have been
hidden under the sea, or later sediments. Urey (1973) proposed
that comet impacts would have energies of 1024 joules or more
(sufficient to boil an area of ocean 200 km. in diameter and 3 km
deep) and that such impacts could explain the termination of
geological epochs and periods, and associated sudden extinctions.
Be this as it may, energy from such impulsive catastrophes would
be converted almost entirely to heat rather than mechanical
motion, and as the thermal pressure of the plasma fire-ball would
act radially on the earth, momentum conservation would be orbital
rather than rotational."

[Lion]

George, (forgve me of you are not grmorton) I grew up in a family that believed that there was a God that created the earth and that He was disappointed with the evil that was evident in the earth, so he caused the flood that destroyed the earth. I have seen what was, to my mind, incontrovertible evidence that the flood happened.

This has been denied by the people that preach evolution. In my 80+ years on earth I have seen all kinds of theories come and go. First there was what I call the "onion coat" theory that was supposed to explain the deposition of strata. That theory disappeared. Then it was discovered that something hit the Yucatan area and caused a disaster that now the theory is that wiped out the majority of animal life on planet earth.

Science has finally come to the conclusion that there was actually WAS some disaster that wiped out animal life. They haven't admitted that there was a flood but they have admitted there was a disaster.

Scientists that have studied plate tectonics have played jigsaw puzzle with the continents and tried to learn what the original continent might have looked like. What I have theorized was that the fountains of the great deep (Gen 7:11) was a split clear to the mantle that split Africa from South America. The resulting "super continent" broke up. The midatlantic ridge is volcanic for its entire length and the National Geographic map "The Earth's Fractured Surface" shows the myriad cracks on the ocean bottom. It also shows that the midocean ridge extends 44,000 miles, clear around the earth.

I was interested in your (apparently) printout of the survey of the ocean. I don't understand all the terms, but it agrees with my general observation of the ocean bottom in that area. My map of the north Atlantic does not show the fractures that occur around the bulge of S. Am. I think you would be interested in the map I have.

[grmorton]

George, (forgve me of you are not grmorton) I grew up in a family that believed that there was a God that created the earth and that He was disappointed with the evil that was evident in the earth, so he caused the flood that destroyed the earth. I have seen what was, to my mind, incontrovertible evidence that the flood happened.

Of course you are not going to tell us what that evidence was.

This has been denied by the people that preach evolution. In my 80+ years on earth I have seen all kinds of theories come and go. First there was what I call the "onion coat" theory that was supposed to explain the deposition of strata. That theory disappeared.

Given that you are 80+ there is really little point of trying to change your mind. You will believe what you want to at this point in your life regardless of any data. But, I must object. There was NEVER an 'onion coat' theory of geology in the past 90 years. Simply never existed in regular geology. I know where you got that claptrap. It was from George McCready Price who always talked about an onion coat theory, which didn't even exist in the 90 years prior to when he lived. So, you believe that a non-existent theory of geology appeared and disappeared in your lifetime. There probably isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise I presume.


Then it was discovered that something hit the Yucatan area and caused a disaster that now the theory is that wiped out the majority of animal life on planet earth.

No, geologists still know that a meteor hit the Yucatan and wiped out the dinosaurs. We can see the crater with various forms of remote sensing (seismic and gravity), we can see the tsunami deposits, we can see the tiny spherules of the material blasted into outerspace which then fell back to earth. So you are wrong--geology still holds to the Chicxulub impact crater.

Science has finally come to the conclusion that there was actually WAS some disaster that wiped out animal life. They haven't admitted that there was a flood but they have admitted there was a disaster.

There have been several extinctions in earth history in which few species crossed the boundary. The worst was the Permian extinction in which 95% of all life died. But then, that life was not at all like anything alive today and the animals who appeared in the rocks above the Permian also are not like any living creatures. But of course that won't make any difference to a guy set in his ways.

I was interested in your (apparently) printout of the survey of the ocean. I don't understand all the terms, but it agrees with my general observation of the ocean bottom in that area. My map of the north Atlantic does not show the fractures that occur around the bulge of S. Am. I think you would be interested in the map I have.

I hate to be disrespectful of someone of your age, but you really don't know what you are talking about. The bulge of South America is in the southern hemisphere and thus not in the North Atlantic but it is in the South Atlantic.

[Lion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion



George, (forgve me of you are not grmorton) I grew up in a family that believed that there was a God that created the earth and that He was disappointed with the evil that was evident in the earth, so he caused the flood that destroyed the earth. I have seen what was, to my mind, incontrovertible evidence that the flood happened.



Of course you are not going to tell us what that evidence was.
---------------------
George, I was trying to be respectful of your position, knowing that you hold a different opinion. No, I was not trying to withhold any information at all. The evidence has been developing over the years and is not simple.


Quote:



This has been denied by the people that preach evolution. In my 80+ years on earth I have seen all kinds of theories come and go. First there was what I call the "onion coat" theory that was supposed to explain the deposition of strata. That theory disappeared.


Given that you are 80+ there is really little point of trying to change your mind. You will believe what you want to at this point in your life regardless of any data. But, I must object. There was NEVER an 'onion coat' theory of geology in the past 90 years. Simply never existed in regular geology. I know where you got that claptrap. It was from George McCready Price who always talked about an onion coat theory, which didn't even exist in the 90 years prior to when he lived. So, you believe that a non-existent theory of geology appeared and disappeared in your lifetime. There probably isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise I presume.
--------------
I’m glad you laid that theory to rest. I never believed it anyway. However, there was some thinking along those lines when NASA was thinking of going to the moon. There was a real question when I was working for NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The question was over the depth of dust on the moon. It turned out to be no problem.



Quote:



Then it was discovered that something hit the Yucatan area and caused a disaster that now the theory is that wiped out the majority of animal life on planet earth.


No, geologists still know that a meteor hit the Yucatan and wiped out the dinosaurs. We can see the crater with various forms of remote sensing (seismic and gravity), we can see the tsunami deposits, we can see the tiny spherules of the material blasted into outerspace which then fell back to earth. So you are wrong--geology still holds to the Chicxulub impact crater.
--------------------
I know scientists THINK the dinosaurs were wiped out by that meteor. I happen to think they were wiped out by the flood. I don’t deny the meteor impact or the effect of the strike. We both know the dinosaurs were wiped o


Quote:



Science has finally come to the conclusion that there was actually WAS some disaster that wiped out animal life. They haven't admitted that there was a flood but they have admitted there was a disaster.


There have been several extinctions in earth history in which few species crossed the boundary. The worst was the Permian extinction in which 95% of all life died. But then, that life was not at all like anything alive today and the animals who appeared in the rocks above the Permian also are not like any living creatures. But of course that won't make any difference to a guy set in his ways.
--------------------
I won’t argue whether there was one or several. That is not the question. And I am NOT refusing to listen to reasonable explanations. But I did ask you a question if you had any explanation for the 44,000 mile volcanic ridge the circles the earth.

Quote:



I was interested in your (apparently) printout of the survey of the ocean. I don't understand all the terms, but it agrees with my general observation of the ocean bottom in that area. My map of the north Atlantic does not show the fractures that occur around the bulge of S. Am. I think you would be interested in the map I have.


I hate to be disrespectful of someone of your age, but you really don't know what you are talking about. The bulge of South America is in the southern hemisphere and thus not in the North Atlantic but it is in the South Atlantic.
------------------
No offense taken. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I misspoke. The north Atlantic shows seven or eight cracks beginning about lat 40, but they are not the major fault zones that occur south of the equator. The romanche fracture zone at the equator is a HUGE one where the midatlantic ridge jogs east about 20 degrees. From there along the thousands of miles remaining it is a zigzag. I suggest you get that map from the National Geographic so we can discuss what I am talking about.

How can we impact the world for Christ if we are always retreating to protected areas to avoid scientific criticism of our apologetical views? If Christian apologetics only works when protected from all possible criticism, it aint worth a bucket of warm spit!!!!

I agree with your sentiment expressed in the box ar the bottom of your post. It seems to me you are retreating to science as a refuge from the plain word of God. Genesis tells a story of a flood that wiped out all animal life except what was in the ark. It does’t agree with the “scientific” explanation. You are retreating into “science” and treating Genesis as a myth. How can you expect to have any impact for God when you say you don’t believe, that it is a myth?

[grmorton]

George, I was trying to be respectful of your position, knowing that you hold a different opinion. No, I was not trying to withhold any information at all. The evidence has been developing over the years and is not simple.

But you still aren't saying what it is--by the way, I am Glenn Morton, not George.


I’m glad you laid that theory to rest. I never believed it anyway. However, there was some thinking along those lines when NASA was thinking of going to the moon. There was a real question when I was working for NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center. The question was over the depth of dust on the moon. It turned out to be no problem.

Science knew it was no problem long before the moonlandings:

"Ranger increased a thousandfold our ability to see detail.
But the Apollo planners needed more. They needed actually
to test the surface, to assure that astronauts and
spacecraft would not be swallowed up, as some people feared,
in a deep, treacherous sea of dust.
"Five successful Surveyors, out of seven attempts in 1966,
'67, and '68, soft-landed on the moon and gave unequivocal
answers. Their TV cameras were able to see particles as
small as a fiftieth of an inch. But more important, as each
spindly, spraddle-legged craft dropped gingerly to the
surface, its speed largely negated by retrorockets, its
three footpads sank no more than an inch or two into the
soft lunar soil. The bearing strength of the surface
measured as much as 5 to 10 pounds per square inch, ample
for either astronaut or landing spacecraft."
"'It will be like treading on old snow with a set of
oversize galoshes,' says Gene Shoemaker. A man will sink
enough to leave footprints, but he will be able to walk
without a great deal of trouble."
. . .
"All these tests and observations gave a consistent picture
of the lunar soil. The long debate about whether the moon
is covered with something like ashes, or light fluffy dust,
or fragile 'fairy castles' of cemented particles or hard
rock, was settled. The surface, at least in the five
regions where Surveyors landed, is made up of gray, finely
divided, granular material that is slightly cohesive, much
like terrestrial garden soil."



I know scientists THINK the dinosaurs were wiped out by that meteor. I happen to think they were wiped out by the flood. I don’t deny the meteor impact or the effect of the strike. We both know the dinosaurs were wiped

Then what is your evidence for the flood? You don't tell us.


I won’t argue whether there was one or several. That is not the question. And I am NOT refusing to listen to reasonable explanations. But I did ask you a question if you had any explanation for the 44,000 mile volcanic ridge the circles the earth.

But if there were several, that pattern doesn't fit the global flood expectation of ONE extinction.

Yes, the ridge is caused by upwelling material in the mantle.

No offense taken. Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I misspoke. The north Atlantic shows seven or eight cracks beginning about lat 40, but they are not the major fault zones that occur south of the equator. The romanche fracture zone at the equator is a HUGE one where the midatlantic ridge jogs east about 20 degrees. From there along the thousands of miles remaining it is a zigzag. I suggest you get that map from the National Geographic so we can discuss what I am talking about.


I have that map but have to go to worknow. I will look at it tonight.

[Lion]

Excuse me Glenn. These pseudonyms we so often use hide our true identity can be troublesome. My name is Ken.

I wasn't trying to avoid the question. You didn't reply to my last remark about how can we make an impact for Christ if we retreat into some scientific theory rather than sticking with the word of scripture?

In Ex 20:8-11 God says He created the heavens and the earth. In Rev 14 we find an angel proclaining 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 don't mean to preach at you, but the so-called theistic evolution denies that God created the earth. It reduces the first chapters of Genesis to folklore and a myth. Enough on that subject.

I do think there is a lot of evidence for the flood. The map you say you have shows a lot of fractures of the earth's surface and that long volcanic ridge that extends around the earth should tell us something. I don't want to go into a long and involved discussion about a lot of things. I want to keep it simple. We can discuss a lot of things but it gets complicated fast.

First off, I don't know what event triggered the flood. I have tried to figure out how much energy it would take to tip the earth 23.5 degrees and I ran out of energy. All I know is that the earth apparently was nearly vertical before the flood. I surmise this because one of the first things God mentioned after the flood was cold and heat. Before that people were naked and not uncomfortable. They were provided loin coverings after the fall, to cover their nakedness.

But Noah recorded the the fountains of the great deep were broken up. I think the fountains were like the geysers of Yellowstone only much deeper, clear down to the mantle. Water rushing in and striking the hot mantle created the rain for 40 days. The ocean has numerous black smokers along the midocean ridges, and the entire length of the ridge is volcanic. I do not know where the first break started, but apparently the Atlantic is one place.

I don't want to get into plate tectonics but apparently the Atlantic opened up as a result of the fountains pushing the plates apart.

That's enough for now.

Ken

[grmorton]

Excuse me Glenn. These pseudonyms we so often use hide our true identity can be troublesome. My name is Ken.

I wasn't trying to avoid the question. You didn't reply to my last remark about how can we make an impact for Christ if we retreat into some scientific theory rather than sticking with the word of scripture?

My sig is actually directed towards TW which holds a special place for young-earth creationists where their delicate psyches can be protected from any and all scientific criticism. It is mommy's room for them. I find such an unwillingness to stand up and take the criticism utterly chicken and that is why I have that on my signature.

To answer your question, don't equate your interpretation of the Scripture with Scripture itself. That is to commit the sin of Adam--to think you can become like God. And that is what too many young-earther's try to do--they say their interpretation is the God-given interpretation.


In Ex 20:8-11 God says He created the heavens and the earth. In Rev 14 we find an angel proclaining 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 both places that God did create the earth. That doesn't mean God created the heavens and the earth as Ken Ham says He did.

I don't mean to preach at you, but the so-called theistic evolution denies that God created the earth. It reduces the first chapters of Genesis to folklore and a myth. Enough on that subject.

I am a TE and I believe Genesis 1 is quite literal and I suspect that most atheists on this list would criticize me for being such a literalist. You need to think out of the box a bit.

I do think there is a lot of evidence for the flood. The map you say you have shows a lot of fractures of the earth's surface and that long volcanic ridge that extends around the earth should tell us something. I don't want to go into a long and involved discussion about a lot of things. I want to keep it simple. We can discuss a lot of things but it gets complicated fast.

This is what is wrong with you yecs. You don't want anything to be complicated so you don't pay any attention to the details and thus you all do sloppy science--play science really. What that ridge tells us is that the continents are spliting apart and drifting. It tells us nothing about a global flood.

First off, I don't know what event triggered the flood. I have tried to figure out how much energy it would take to tip the earth 23.5 degrees and I ran out of energy. All I know is that the earth apparently was nearly vertical before the flood.

I thought you said you wanted to stick with the Bible. Can you tell me what precise Bible verse says the earth's rotational axis was perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit? Any translation will do. If you are sticking with the Bible you will be able to find such a verse. If you are running amok, you won't be able to find such a verse.

I surmise this because one of the first things God mentioned after the flood was cold and heat. Before that people were naked and not uncomfortable. They were provided loin coverings after the fall, to cover their nakedness.[/qoute]

But the fall was much earlier than the flood and thus you, by making the two events happen at the same time are decidedly NOT following scripture. You are making it up as you go along. There are verses that warn against adding to the Bible.

[quote]But Noah recorded the the fountains of the great deep were broken up. I think the fountains were like the geysers of Yellowstone only much deeper, clear down to the mantle. Water rushing in and striking the hot mantle created the rain for 40 days. The ocean has numerous black smokers along the midocean ridges, and the entire length of the ridge is volcanic. I do not know where the first break started, but apparently the Atlantic is one place. [quote]

And where does it say that in the Bible--meaning, that the fountains of the deep were like the geysers of Yellowstone? Where does it say int he Bible that the water rushing in and striking the hot mantle created the rain for 40 days. I think this is your addition to Scripture. You are making it up, playing God and adding to the Bible. If you disagree with that, then tell me what verse talks about the earth's mantle and Yellowstone.

[quote]I don't want to get into plate tectonics but apparently the Atlantic opened up as a result of the fountains pushing the plates apart.

That's enough for now.

Ken

None of you yecs really want to get into plate tectonics or any other area of science. You avoid it like the plague.

[Lion]

quote
My sig is actually directed towards TW which holds a special place for young-earth creationists where their delicate psyches can be protected from any and all scientific criticism. It is mommy's room for them. I find such an unwillingness to stand up and take the criticism utterly chicken and that is why I have that on my signature.
------------------
I am NOT delicate and thin skinned and I do not need a womb. I can take justified criticism. I am willing to take correction. I welcome people who are willing to discuss points of difference without acting as if they have omnicient wisdom and sneer at a different point of view.
---------------------
quote
To answer your question, don't equate your interpretation of the Scripture with Scripture itself. That is to commit the sin of Adam--to think you can become like God. And that is what too many young-earther's try to do--they say their interpretation is the God-given interpretation.
-------------------
I do not try to equate my theories as scripture. I have as much right as you to state a theory. That does not mean it is of the same weight as scripture. I am pleased that you said you believe God did create the heavens and the earth. I have recently come to the conclusion that the earth may have been created long before the actual placing of life on the earth. I am searching for solutions that harmonize the findings of science with scripture.

To make myself clear, I have looked at the radioactive dating problem and come to the conclusion that if the materials of the earth were here long before life was created there might be a way to harmonize the dating problem with a young earth creation. I have noted the the K-Ar dating of pillow lava has a problem because the argon can’t escape and “reset the clock.” If the argon can’t escape, naturally the date would be very old. The other problem, to date lava flows from eruptions is a problem because nobody can be sure the clock is reset to zero for a variety of reasons. I question radioactive dating for that reason.
----------------
quote
I believe both places that God did create the earth. That doesn't mean God created the heavens and the earth as Ken Ham says He did.
------------------
I agree
_________________
Quote
I am a TE and I believe Genesis 1 is quite literal and I suspect that most atheists on this list would criticize me for being such a literalist. You need to think out of the box a bit.
---------------------
I have been thinking a lot as you say,outside the box. That is why I have changfed my opinion
Quote ken
I do think there is a lot of evidence for the flood. The map you say you have shows a lot of fractures of the earth's surface and that long volcanic ridge that extends around the earth should tell us something. I don't want to go into a long and involved discussion about a lot of things. I want to keep it simple. We can discuss a lot of things but it gets complicated fast.
---------------
quote glenn
This is what is wrong with you yecs. You don't want anything to be complicated so you don't pay any attention to the details and thus you all do sloppy science--play science really. What that ridge tells us is that the continents are spliting apart and drifting. It tells us nothing about a global flood.
---------------
I agree totally, except that it may tell us about the beginnings of the flood.
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.

Let me ask you this: Are Gen 6 to 8 myth or actual historic fact?


If water goes up like a fountain, It usually comes down. This probably was the source of the rain. The heat of the earth would turn the water to steam instantly, until the water got too deep. Now, depending on how far down the crack went, the heat of the earth would be enough to heat up a lot of water. Steam tables from the handbook of chemisry and physics tell us that the critical point for steam is 3184 PSI and 705.2 deg F. This corresponds to a depth of 6123 feet. The National Geographic had an article a few months ago about a black smoker along the midatlantic ridge where there was a colony of blind shrimp in the warm water. The water in the smoker was 700 deg F. Obviously the shrimp were in the warm, not hot water. Think about it. That water must have been coming from close to where the heat of volcanoes is.

The queston I want to ask is: could this be a leftover from the fountains of the great deep?

Science tells us the Atlantic opened like a conveyor belt and spread the midatantic ridge. Now I have heard the Atlantic is spreading about an inch a year. If this was the initial rate, and the ocean is about three million inches wide, so three million years. But I have a question. Was it always that rate, or did it have an initial impulse and is now slowing down? My calculations of the pressure on a crack that deep would be about 65 million tons per lneal foot of crack. I think the initial crack must have been somewhere in the original continent and became the Atlantic. The impulse lasted 40 days of the rain. How far it coasted after that is anbody's guess.
--------------------
Glenn quote
I thought you said you wanted to stick with the Bible. Can you tell me what precise Bible verse says the earth's rotational axis was perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit? Any translation will do. If you are sticking with the Bible you will be able to find such a verse. If you are running amok, you won't be able to find such a verse.
----------------------
I agree. I didn’t mean to give that impression. I was referring to an indication in gen 8:22 where God mentioned cold and heat and summer and winter and seed time and harvest. Previously the edenic temperature was probably much more temperate and not seasonal such as we have today, because Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and they were provided loincloths of skin, not complete coverings. That is why I infer that the earth was tipped as the cause of the flood.

If this was the cause the rest would follow, the breaking open of the fountains of the great deep, the tectonic plates moving around. Consider what would happen if the earth were to be suddenly tipped twenty or more degrees, would that cause the seams to rip and make the earth’s skin change? I think it would. Think outside the box a bit.

[Mercury]

I was referring to an indication in gen 8:22 where God mentioned cold and heat and summer and winter and seed time and harvest. Previously the edenic temperature was probably much more temperate and not seasonal such as we have today, because Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and they were provided loincloths of skin, not complete coverings. That is why I infer that the earth was tipped as the cause of the flood.
The verse you are referring to mentions day and night in the same fashion as it mentions summer and winter. What is your biblical justification for thinking day and night already existed but summer and winter didn't?

[grmorton]

------------------
I am NOT delicate and thin skinned and I do not need a womb. I can take justified criticism. I am willing to take correction. I welcome people who are willing to discuss points of difference without acting as if they have omnicient wisdom and sneer at a different point of view.
---------------------

Hey, I will even talk to people who sneer at me. What is the problem with sneering. Some ideas diserve it, like those who think and argue that pigs can fly.


I do not try to equate my theories as scripture. I have as much right as you to state a theory. That does not mean it is of the same weight as scripture. I am pleased that you said you believe God did create the heavens and the earth. I have recently come to the conclusion that the earth may have been created long before the actual placing of life on the earth. I am searching for solutions that harmonize the findings of science with scripture.

You won't find solutions in that direction. Geology won't support it.

To make myself clear, I have looked at the radioactive dating problem and come to the conclusion that if the materials of the earth were here long before life was created there might be a way to harmonize the dating problem with a young earth creation. I have noted the the K-Ar dating of pillow lava has a problem because the argon can’t escape and “reset the clock.” If the argon can’t escape, naturally the date would be very old. The other problem, to date lava flows from eruptions is a problem because nobody can be sure the clock is reset to zero for a variety of reasons. I question radioactive dating for that reason.

In most situations, argon can escape. It can't escape from some minerals and during certain special conditions. Geochron can probably do a better job with this than I.

---------------------
I have been thinking a lot as you say,outside the box. That is why I have changfed my opinion

What in apologetics have you changed from and to what.


---------------
I agree totally, except that it may tell us about the beginnings of the flood.
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.

That map can't tell us about the beginning of the flood if you assume all the fossils are from the flood. There are sedimentary layers in South America which match up to Southern Africa, which sediment was deposited before the ocean opened up.Thus fossilization and large piles of sediment were occurring long before the mid-oceanic ridge was there.

Let me ask you this: Are Gen 6 to 8 myth or actual historic fact?

I believe fact. I don't believe the typical YEC explanation becuase it is simply false.


If water goes up like a fountain, It usually comes down. This probably was the source of the rain. The heat of the earth would turn the water to steam instantly, until the water got too deep. Now, depending on how far down the crack went, the heat of the earth would be enough to heat up a lot of water. Steam tables from the handbook of chemisry and physics tell us that the critical point for steam is 3184 PSI and 705.2 deg F. This corresponds to a depth of 6123 feet.

Not it doesn't. I have drilled oil wells to 24,329 feet and the temperature was only 410 F. If you have magma, the temperature of the magma is over 1100 Centigrage.

The National Geographic had an article a few months ago about a black smoker along the midatlantic ridge where there was a colony of blind shrimp in the warm water. The water in the smoker was 700 deg F. Obviously the shrimp were in the warm, not hot water. Think about it. That water must have been coming from close to where the heat of volcanoes is.

Think about it. That tells you nothing about a flood.

The queston I want to ask is: could this be a leftover from the fountains of the great deep?

No, it tells you it is hot down there.

Science tells us the Atlantic opened like a conveyor belt and spread the midatantic ridge. Now I have heard the Atlantic is spreading about an inch a year. If this was the initial rate, and the ocean is about three million inches wide, so three million years.

ARe you trying to say that the Atlantic Ocean is only 47 miles wide? If so, why did that darn airline charge me so much and fly around for 10 hours at 300 mph to get me to London.


[quote] But I have a question. Was it always that rate, or did it have an initial impulse and is now slowing down? My calculations of the pressure on a crack that deep would be about 65 million tons per lneal foot of crack. I think the initial crack must have been somewhere in the original continent and became the Atlantic. The impulse lasted 40 days of the rain. How far it coasted after that is anbody's guess.{/quote]

Have you ever heard of the word, "friction"? The continents wouldn't coast.
[quote]--------------------
Glenn quote
I thought you said you wanted to stick with the Bible. Can you tell me what precise Bible verse says the earth's rotational axis was perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit? Any translation will do. If you are sticking with the Bible you will be able to find such a verse. If you are running amok, you won't be able to find such a verse.
----------------------
I agree. I didn’t mean to give that impression. I was referring to an indication in gen 8:22 where God mentioned cold and heat and summer and winter and seed time and harvest. Previously the edenic temperature was probably much more temperate and not seasonal such as we have today, because Adam and Eve were naked before the fall and they were provided loincloths of skin, not complete coverings. That is why I infer that the earth was tipped as the cause of the flood.

The problem with YEC is that everyone makes up their own miracles for God to do. It is sort of like a cosmic honey-do list. Russ Humphreys says God did one set of miracles. John Baumgardner has another list for God to perform. You have your list of miracles. MossRose in another thread is defending her list of tricks for God to do. YECs seem to treat God as a dog at a carnival who does tricks upon command. And these tricks don't even have to be in the Bible. I think it is a latent-god complex showing up.



If this was the cause the rest would follow, the breaking open of the fountains of the great deep, the tectonic plates moving around. Consider what would happen if the earth were to be suddenly tipped twenty or more degrees, would that cause the seams to rip and make the earth’s skin change? I think it would. Think outside the box a bit.

Well it is just as good as the theory that flying pigs exhaled through their posterior parts, sufficient methane which all collected under the mid-oceanic ridge and exploded sending the continents apart. If you find any problem with that theory, then I would claim that God did it miraculously. I suspect that the flying pigs were the miraculous part but I am not sure. The fact that none of this is in the Bible shouldn't bother anyone hardly at all because it explains the flood.

[Lion]

Glenn, I was hoping to have a civilized chat about your beliefs without any snide and sneering remarks. I was hoping that I had found someone who was well versed in TE and could discuss points of difference of YEC and TE.

I detect from your reply you seem to have an attitude that you know all there is to know and don’t want to discuss it. If that is how you feel, have it your way and we will part with our differences unresolved.

I would like to know several things about TE. First, what is your theory about how the midocean ridge came to exist? Second, where did the fossils come from? Third, what caused the breakup of the original continent, if there was one? Fourth, do you have any explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths in Siberia?

How can we impact the world for Christ if we are always retreating to protected areas to avoid scientific criticism of our apologetical views? If Christian apologetics only works when protected from all possible criticism, it aint worth a bucket of warm spit!!!!

I do not retreat into some protected area. I want to know what true science has to say, not unsuported theory. You said you believed Gen 6-8 was history. What is your take on that?

[grmorton]

Glenn, I was hoping to have a civilized chat about your beliefs without any snide and sneering remarks. I was hoping that I had found someone who was well versed in TE and could discuss points of difference of YEC and TE.

I detect from your reply you seem to have an attitude that you know all there is to know and don’t want to discuss it. If that is how you feel, have it your way and we will part with our differences unresolved.

I have spent 20 years trying to have civilized rational discussions with those who deny observational science. I don't beleive any of you really want a rational discussion because rational discussion means that one should not deny what is right before one's eyes. Yet over and over YECs say they have the truth but fail to respond to the argument.

I presume it was the flying pigs thing you didn't like. If you would reflect a bit, my argument was little different than the argument you presented. You didn't like or think my argument was good, yet it paralleled your position. You are having God do things which are not mentioned in scripture and thus you become for a moment, the ruler of the universe. You get to tell God what miracles He should perform and what effects you think He should bring about. If you can have meteors which violate physics (indeed physics modeling shows that you can't hit the earth with any sized body and tilt it by 23 degrees.

The reason I make snide remarks is because you guys simply ignore anything you find inconvenient. I posted the reference to the work on what would happen if a big asteroid hit the earth It won't accomplish what you want it to. If you go too much bigger, you will blast the earth into pieces. Yet, you ignored my post and continue to jabber on about how something tilted the axis. If you are just going to ignore what I write without explaining why it doesn't apply, then I am afraid you will get some snide remarks from me. I know nothing else which will get your attention.

Here is that data again:

"Dachille correctly points out that even under the most extremely favourable conditions of impact with an asteroid the size of Juno (190 km diameter) the resultant axis change would be only 0'.02."

“In fact, a bigger body, say 320 km in diameter, colliding at a maximum possible velocity of 72 km/sec would produce only 0 32' axis shift despite an energy 75 times the Juno example."


ARe you simply going to ignore it again?

I would like to know several things about TE. First, what is your theory about how the midocean ridge came to exist?

Where every geologist thinks it comes from--upwelling hot mantle material creates the ridge.

Second, where did the fossils come from?

Fossilization is occurring today both on land and in the sea. If you really have any interest (and I seriously doubt you do) you will read

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fossilization.htm

It talks about how leaves are being preserved today, it talks about how land animal bones are observed being fossilized today. It talks about how fish fossils form. But of course, this is just so much more data for you to ignore.

Third, what caused the breakup of the original continent, if there was one?

The upwelling hot magma which formed to ridge split the continent. Why don't your read an elementary text on continental drift rather than act like no one has ever thought about these questions before.


Fourth, do you have any explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths in Siberia?

Yeah, contrary to claims, these creatures don't need to be flash frozen. They can fall into a lake or through the ice into a pit in the Fall and they will be frozen. It isn't all that difficult. By the way, there are very few of these frozen mammoths.

I do not retreat into some protected area. I want to know what true science has to say, not unsuported theory. You said you believed Gen 6-8 was history. What is your take on that?

I don't know. You seem to want to be protected from any snide comments. I have posted two posts here that explain my reading of Genesis. I put them on my web page. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/plainreading.htm which discusses why the typical YEC reading of Genesis 1 is flat out grammatically wrong. And http://home.entouch.net/dmd/olam.htm which discusses the fact that the Bible teaches that the earth is very old. Start with those.

[Lion]

Glenn, your impolite and snide, yes know-it-all, attitude gives one the impression you don't care whether someone accepts your message or not. I presume you would like to win people to your way of thinking. Do you think you can win converts to your way of thinking by your know it all, smart aleck way of treating people who may not agree with the way you think?

I have had some success with winning converts to Christ. I had to be gentle with them meeting their objections in a kind, Christlike manner, never acting like you have, with a condescending, holier than thou attitude.

You may be able to convince me of the truth of some of your arguments if you can discuss principles, not with a know it all manner. but when you come at me with an I-know-all-and-you-are-stupid-and-you-know-nothing atttude it turns people off.

You said you had argued for 20 years about TE. How many have you won to Christ this way?

[grmorton]

Glenn, your impolite and snide, yes know-it-all, attitude gives one the impression you don't care whether someone accepts your message or not.

One would like to hope, but having been at this for 10 years and having had hopes dashed several thousand times, it is hard to think that any of the YECs are going to pay any attention to anything rational at all. The problem I have is that there have been over those 10 years several hundred young scientists who grew up YEC and were on their way to atheism because the YECs didn't teach them what they are finding in the data they see at their jobs and schools. Thus, I get to try to pick up the broken peices of lives destroyed by the YEC belief. That is one of the reasons I still even try.


I presume you would like to win people to your way of thinking. Do you think you can win converts to your way of thinking by your know it all, smart aleck way of treating people who may not agree with the way you think?

When you show some sign of caring for the truth, I might actually get excited. Otherwise, it is just mostly a way of improving my personal knowledge to study the areas you won't study.

An example. You say that the earth was tilted by a meteor impact. Did you consult any reputable physicist for this wad of information? Did you read any scientific journals in your quest for 'truth'? Did you look to see if someone else had done the work before you? I know the answer to those questions. All the answers are 'NO'. And you wonder why I might think I know a thing or two more than you. I have done all the above, long before you appeared to proclaim your view of the universe. I looked these things up back in the 1970s.

And given that you haven't done any of the academic research on your own, you force me to have to spoon feed you the info, which you promptly ignore. And then you have the audacity to think you deserve respect for this behavior.

I have had some success with winning converts to Christ. I had to be gentle with them meeting their objections in a kind, Christlike manner, never acting like you have, with a condescending, holier than thou attitude.

You may be able to convince me of the truth of some of your arguments if you can discuss principles, not with a know it all manner. but when you come at me with an I-know-all-and-you-are-stupid-and-you-know-nothing atttude it turns people off.

When you come at us with an attitude of "I don't care and won't discuss any information or citations or references you provide, I will believe what I want to believe regardless of the evidence," how do you expect to be treated?

You said you had argued for 20 years about TE. How many have you won to Christ this way?

I have helped many avoid atheism from the damage guys like you do to the faith of your fellow christians. Indeed, I know of a person here who has privately told me that seeing the nonsense spouted here by people like you, has made his faith weaker.

So, which is more important to you? My attitude, or the truth? I suspect my attitude is more important to you, which means, you don't care for the truth.

[Lion]

glenn
One would like to hope, but having been at this for 10 years and having had hopes dashed several thousand times, it is hard to think that any of the YECs are going to pay any attention to anything rational at all. The problem I have is that there have been over those 10 years several hundred young scientists who grew up YEC and were on their way to atheism because the YECs didn't teach them what they are finding in the data they see at their jobs and schools. Thus, I get to try to pick up the broken peices of lives destroyed by the YEC belief. That is one of the reasons I still even try.
------------------------
Ken
I thought you said it was 20 years.
You know, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that people were on the way to atheism because of the YEC teaching. Perhaps it was because of the pervasive emphasis in our schoole and colleges on evolutionary dogma that the habitable earth just grew out of nothing in an unplanned and usupervised mess of primordial soup. My own belief is that God planned it. Yes, He spoke and it was done. The all pervasive teaching of the universities tends toward atheism, the belief that there is no God. I don’t come from that way of thinking.

A couple of posts ago you referred to the idea that God told the earth to bring forth grass, and so on. The idea you implied was the earth obeyed by some evolutionary process, that God simply stood back and let something evolve.

I don’t understand all the processes involved in creation, but when I read that Christ merely spoke a few words and whatever was wrong with the person was instantly healed, it helps me understand how the creation process could be.

When I was attending college, in 1949, my infant daughter became sick. She would not take a bottle and was becoming dehydrated. We called the doctor and he came to the house. It was in the days just after WWII and doctors didn’t know a lot of things. He gave her a shot of Pennicillin, thinking that would cure the problem. That night my wife woke me. She said, “The baby is dying, I just know it. What can we do?”

All I could think of was pray for her healing. We knelt beside our bed and asked God to heal our baby. I promised God we would serve Him as best we knew how.

We got up from our knees and turned to look at the baby. She gave the sweetest smile ever saw for a child that small. The flushed color drained out of her face and she began to cry, a hunger cry. She took a full 8 ounces of milk and went to sleep.

That experience taught me several things. 1. God does hear our prayers. 2. God can heal istantly. 3. The day of miracles is not ended. 4. It helped me to understand how God can command and the result is instantaneous.

Do you begin to understand why I cannot accept your theory of creation?
----------------------
Glenn
When you show some sign of caring for the truth, I might actually get excited. Otherwise, it is just mostly a way of improving my personal knowledge to study the areas you won't study.
---------------------
I told you I didn’t know what caused the flood. It was more of a question than a statement of fact about the meteor impact. I am open to proof that certain things happened. PROOF not guesses.

[grmorton]

glenn
------------------------
Ken
I thought you said it was 20 years.

Good catch. I will quote Foundation Fall and Flood to tell you a not rational discussion I had with the YECs even when I was a YEC. I am talking about my first published article

The publication of that 1979 article elicited much criticism both of the mathematics and the motives of the author. The story of how long it took to convince young-earth creationists that the canopy won't work is interesting. The article had been a critique of Jody Dillow's doctoral dissertation for which Henry Morris was the sole signatory. During 1978-1979 Jody and I carried on an extended exchange of letters discussing a mathematical error I had found in his dissertation. It was crucial to Jody's thesis that this mistake not be there. Jody denied it. After publication, people sent me tracts on how to become a Christian for merely criticizing the idea of a water vapor canopy. In 1980 I had a meeting with Henry Morris in his office at ICR. There I told him that Dillow had a mathematical error in his calculations. Henry replied, "The math is there for every one to examine". I told him that I had examined it and it was wrong. Henry repeated his mantra. We did this three times and finally in frustration, I ask Dr. Morris, "How many idiots like me do you think there are who will actually plow through the math?" To the best of my recollection, Henry didn't respond to that.
But to Jody's credit, in 1983 he finally rejected his original calculation of the canopy temperature and admitted that I had been correct. He graciously wrote,

"In an earlier publication a crude approximation for calculating the canopy temperature was employed. It has since come to my attention that I made a mathematical error which would yield canopy temperatures that were several times larger than what had been previously reported.(36)"

Reference 36 in that work says,

"36 Reference 1, 1st edition, p. 227. A conversion from CGS to SI should have given for the optical path of 12,190 kg m?2. I am indebted to Mr. Glenn Morton, of Texas, for pointing this out to me, July, 1981."



Dillow's article was Joseph C. Dillow, The Vertical Temperature Structure of the Pre?Flood Vapor Canopy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 20(1983):1:7?14, p. 13

What I couldn't understand in my discussion with both Jody and Henry was why they were so headstrong to avoid any looks at the data and to have any criticism surface. Dillow eventually came around. INdeed, ICR finally ceased for a while teaching the stupid vapor canopy idea although Vardiman is toying with it again.

So, to answer your question, I have been having discussing things with irrational YECs for 20 years. But 10 years ago I came out publically as a theistic evolutionist ant that was what I was referring to in the note with 10 years.

You know, I have a hard time reconciling the idea that people were on the way to atheism because of the YEC teaching.

You know, I have a hard time understanding why someone would try to avoid responsibility for such a thing and YECs are responsible before God in what they teach or should I say mis-teach.


Perhaps it was because of the pervasive emphasis in our schoole and colleges on evolutionary dogma that the habitable earth just grew out of nothing in an unplanned and usupervised mess of primordial soup. My own belief is that God planned it. Yes, He spoke and it was done. The all pervasive teaching of the universities tends toward atheism, the belief that there is no God. I don’t come from that way of thinking.

It is amazing to me that no YEC will ever consider the possibility that they might be in the wrong, no.... not them.....they can't be wrong. It must be those nasty professors, yeah, that's it those atheistic communistic professors. Far be it from us to admit that we haven't provided our youth with an apologetic which works.


A couple of posts ago you referred to the idea that God told the earth to bring forth grass, and so on. The idea you implied was the earth obeyed by some evolutionary process, that God simply stood back and let something evolve.

I don’t understand all the processes involved in creation, but when I read that Christ merely spoke a few words and whatever was wrong with the person was instantly healed, it helps me understand how the creation process could be.

But that doesn't always happen. When God promised the messiah, he didn't instantly appear like instant oatmeal.

When I was attending college, in 1949, my infant daughter became sick. She would not take a bottle and was becoming dehydrated. We called the doctor and he came to the house. It was in the days just after WWII and doctors didn’t know a lot of things. He gave her a shot of Pennicillin, thinking that would cure the problem. That night my wife woke me. She said, “The baby is dying, I just know it. What can we do?”

All I could think of was pray for her healing. We knelt beside our bed and asked God to heal our baby. I promised God we would serve Him as best we knew how.

We got up from our knees and turned to look at the baby. She gave the sweetest smile ever saw for a child that small. The flushed color drained out of her face and she began to cry, a hunger cry. She took a full 8 ounces of milk and went to sleep.

That experience taught me several things. 1. God does hear our prayers. 2. God can heal istantly. 3. The day of miracles is not ended. 4. It helped me to understand how God can command and the result is instantaneous.

Do you begin to understand why I cannot accept your theory of creation?

I am delighted your daughter lived. It has nothing to do with creationism. So no, I don't understand how you connect the two other than that you seem to think that TE's don't beleive in miracles. Do a search on this page for my name, grmorton and turkish translator. That was something that happened to me which I believe was a miracle. It too has nothing to do with creation or evolution.

----------------------
Glenn
When you show some sign of caring for the truth, I might actually get excited. Otherwise, it is just mostly a way of improving my personal knowledge to study the areas you won't study.
---------------------
I told you I didn’t know what caused the flood. It was more of a question than a statement of fact about the meteor impact. I am open to proof that certain things happened. PROOF not guesses.

that is a small sign that you might care for the truth. But proof is not found in science history or theology. What we have is probabilities. Proofs are only available in mathematics. All other sciences lack them and thus you ask the impossible.

[Lion]

Glenn, forgive me for not understanding you apparently do believe a miracle is possible. I had gotten the impression that all evolutionsts discount the possibility of a miracle. I didn't know. That was why I told of my daughter's healing. I have since learned how to cure that problem, but we were young and inexperenced. But it strengthened my faith to believe there is a God we can call on in time of need.

I learned that the theory of a vapor canopy is flawed as the source of the flood, because the weight of the water increases air pressure so that theory was no good. I understand your argument with Morris and Dillow. I don't really know the source of the flood water beacause Genesis doesn't say. The only clue is the fountains of the great deep, which I think was the source and why I feel was the reason the ridges exist. There is a question in some circles over whether the flood was merely a local mesopotamian affair or worldwide. I think from the language in Genesis it had to be worldwide.

The book Noah's flood (Ryan and Pitman) tells of a lowering of the sea level by five hundred feet and that the black sea was a fresh water lake much lower than the present sea level. Apparently the ice lowered the sea level. Historically, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world was the lighthouse at Pharoes (sp). Divers have recovered remains of that structure under the med, which gives some credence to the story of the sea being lower. I don't think the authors of the book had all his facts about the flood straight but he seems to be on track regarding sea levels. I was reading in the paper about where they had a conference in Corsica about the Med once being nearly dry.

A local flood just doesn't fit. What is your opinion?

[grmorton]

Glenn, forgive me for not understanding you apparently do believe a miracle is possible. I had gotten the impression that all evolutionsts discount the possibility of a miracle. I didn't know.

About 95% of the problem in these debates is that unfortunately, people like you are told all sorts of falsehoods about TEs by your YEC leadership. They think that if they can make Christians see TEs as Godless scum, then their followers won't desert the ranks. And funny thing about it is that they are right. TE's are not what you have been taught.


I learned that the theory of a vapor canopy is flawed as the source of the flood, because the weight of the water increases air pressure so that theory was no good. I understand your argument with Morris and Dillow. I don't really know the source of the flood water beacause Genesis doesn't say. The only clue is the fountains of the great deep, which I think was the source and why I feel was the reason the ridges exist. There is a question in some circles over whether the flood was merely a local mesopotamian affair or worldwide. I think from the language in Genesis it had to be worldwide.

I place the flood in a very different time and place than most TEs but the word in Hebrew which the YECs insist must be taken as planet earth, the word 'eretz', simly has to mean local area because Abram was told to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' God would show him. The problem is that if eretz has to mean planet earth, then Abram is either a space man or he is disobedient. I don't believe either alternative. Abram was obedient and eretz means a local region. And if that is so, then the flood can biblically be local. This is also something that your YEC leaders won't tell you and few in the YEC community actually think about this problem.

The book Noah's flood (Ryan and Pitman) tells of a lowering of the sea level by five hundred feet and that the black sea was a fresh water lake much lower than the present sea level. Apparently the ice lowered the sea level. Historically, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world was the lighthouse at Pharoes (sp). Divers have recovered remains of that structure under the med, which gives some credence to the story of the sea being lower. I don't think the authors of the book had all his facts about the flood straight but he seems to be on track regarding sea levels. I was reading in the paper about where they had a conference in Corsica about the Med once being nearly dry.

It was and that is where and when I place the flood. IT is the only geologic event during the lifetime of the hominids (we are hominids) which even comes close to matching the description of the Biblical flood.

A local flood just doesn't fit. What is your opinion?

A local flood does fit. Abraham was told to leave his eretz, and God flooded the eretz. If eretz is planet earth then Abraham left his planet and God flooded the earth. If eretz is a local land area, then Abraham was obedient and left his country and God flooded a local region. The YECs won't tell you this.

[Lion]

Sorry, Glenn, I have a very different view of the flood. There is too much evidence that the entire globe was inundated by water to believe that nonesense about a local flood that inundated a small area. I agree that plate tectonics shifted the continents. A while back you admitted that the upwellng caused the splitting of the original land mass. Did it do that or not.

Further, Eve probably had considerably more than three or four children. Hebrew tradition, according to Josephus, the Jewish historian, says that Cain married two wives, Ada and Zillah, by whom he had seventy seven children. That would have been a population explosion. Without doubt there were several billion humans on earth by the time the flood came.

As far as the population of wooly mammoths in the arctic is concerned, I agree that there were probably relatively few in number that survived to be frozen, but Nikolai Vereshchagan, chairman of the Russian committee for the study of Mammoths is quoted as saying there were an estimated half a millon tons of Mammoth tusks buried along one six hundred mile stretch of the Siberian coast. That translates to five million animals. There has been a lively trade in mammoth ivory for centuries. When it became known that someone wanted to clone the wooly mamoth, it didn’t take long for Jarkov to find a frozen mammoth to be dug out of the snow and transport it by helicopter.

That is not the half of the story of the disaster. This is from the book, the lost Americans.

I will quote the eyewitness accounts of the carnage seen by Dr Frank Hibbens and others in Alaska and Siberia. It will be seen how only a tremendous wave of water could have caused the sudden and violent death of the forty million huge mammals that were destroyed and deposited in these places during the poleshift of 10,000 bce.

The huge waves that rushed north swept all the megafauna, forests, and rocks in their path, moving in a northwest direction across North America, being channeled thru the ice-free corridor of the northwest between the towering glaciers. Depositing a portion of its burden before the flank of Alaska's southern glacier, and carrying the rest across northern Alaska, that was never glaciated, and across the Aleutians into Siberia. Perhaps much of the wave passed north over the globe, then south into Siberia, before dropping its terrible burden. In crossing our continent this salt water wave passed thru many huge glacial lakes, so the water after reaching Siberia had less salt content, and was able to freeze very quickly, preserving the bodies much like a freezer, for thousands of years. They were frozen very fast, and never thawed during these twelve thousand years. Dogs and wolves fed upon this flesh, when first uncovered. Even men sampled the meat with no ill effect. The last meal of buttercups was still in the mouth of one creature. The disaster was so sudden that none showed fear, but seemed in the midst of casual browsing.

Quoting from Dr Hibben's book, "The Lost Americans" :

"In many places the Alaskan muck blanket is packed with animal bones and debris in trainload lots."

"Within this mass, frozen solid. lie the twisted parts of animals and trees intermingled with lenses of ice and layers of peat and mosses. It looks as though in the middle of some catacystimic catastrophe. . . the whole Alaskan world of living animals and plants was suddenly frozen in mid- motion in a grim charade" (Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, New York; Apollo Editions, 1961. pp. 90, 91).

Mammal Massacre .. Special Thanks to the author of this site for providing Dr. Hibben's account.

"Tendons, ligaments, fragments skin and hair, hooves - all are preserved in the muck. In some cases, portions of animal flesh have been preserved. Bones of mammoths, mastodons, bison, horses, wolves, bears and lions are hopelessly entangled! One author counts 1,766 jaws and 4,838 meta- podials from ONE species of bison in a small area near Fairbanks, Alaska, alone. Archaeologist Hibben saw with his own eyes - and smelled with his own nostrils - the specter of death. North of Fairbanks, Alaska, he saw bulldozers pushing the melting muck into sluice boxes for the extraction of gold. As the dozers' blades scooped up the melting gunk, mammoth tusks and bones "rolled up like shavings before a giant plane." The stench of rotting flesh -tons of it - could be smelled for miles around.

Hibben and his colleagues walked the pits for days. As they followed the bulldozers they discovered perfect bison skulls with horns attached, mammoth skin with long black hair and jumbled masses of bones.

Appalling Death in Alaska

But let Hibben continue his grisly account:

"Mammals there were in abundance, dumped in all attitudes of death. Most of them were pulled apart by some unexplained prehistoric catastrophic disturbance. Legs and torsos and heads and fragments were found together in piles or scattered separately" ((ibid., p.97). Logs, twisted trees, branches and stumps were interlaced with the mammal menagerie. The signs of sudden death were legion.

For example, in the Alaskan muck, stomachs of frozen mammoths have been discovered. These frozen stomach masses contain the leaves and grasses the animals had just eaten before death struck. Seemingly, no animal was spared.

"The young lie with the old, foal with dam and calf with cow. Whole herds of animals were apparently killed together, overcome by some common power" (ibid, p. 170).

Sudden and Unnatural Death

The muck pits of Alaska are filled with evidence of universal and catastrophic death. These animals simply did not perish by any ordinary means. Multiple thousands of animals in their prime were obliterated.

On reviewing the evidence before his eyes, Hibben concluded:

"We have gained from the muck pits of the Yukon Valley a picture of QUICK EXTINCTION. The evidences of violence there are as obvious as in the horror camps of [Nazi] Germany. Such piles of bodies of animals or men simply do not occur by any ordinary means" (ibid, p 170).

If you want the full impact of what Dr. Hibben surveyed read his book, The Lost Americans. "

Many learned people claim that a landslide killed the 10 million large mammals in Siberia, saying they were not quick frozen, but mummified, and giving no thought how this number and diversity of prey and predators, that were inhabitants of temperate to tropical regions, happened to be so close together in the far north, when the landslide occurred. I believe the eyewitness accounts given by Dr Hibbins on what he saw in Alaska. A tsunami of 600 feet high, traveling with tremendous speed and power, could better account for this mangled mass of huge creatures, trees, and giant boulders, that crashed thru the prairies, and forests, and rocks, before depositing its victims where they were found.

The best approach is to first acquaint the reader with the facts of the end of the Pleistocene Age, circa 10,000 bce, when the megafauna of the Americas were totally destroyed, and became extinct. It will be shown that this was caused by a sudden and most violent disaster of global proportions. The whole earth was affected by this event, but the worst of the disaster was seen in the Americas and Siberia.

The Discover magazine had an article some months back about another gold mine near Dawson where they have unearthed thousands of bison bones with fresh appearing marrow. They were unearthed by hydraulic mining. This falsifies the local mesopotamian flood idea.

[grmorton]

Sorry, Glenn, I have a very different view of the flood. There is too much evidence that the entire globe was inundated by water to believe that nonesense about a local flood that inundated a small area.

edited to add: Just because you have a different theory doesn't mean it bears any reality. REality is judged by the facts a view explains. Your's explains nothing. But you think it does. Here is a test

Let's hear your explanations for the geology problems I pose for the global flood. You can find them at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm

Since you are so sure that there is evidence for the flood we can thus be assured that you will provide detailed explanations for things like cicada burrows in the geologic record, footprints, droughts, and tracks and trails. If you can't explain these things then what you said is mere puffery.

So what with the mammoth tusks? Teeth are among the hardest items to be found on the animal and tusks are teeth. They are very hard to destroy.

That is not the half of the story of the disaster. This is from the book, the lost Americans.

I will quote the eyewitness accounts of the carnage seen by Dr Frank Hibbens and others in Alaska and Siberia. It will be seen how only a tremendous wave of water could have caused the sudden and violent death of the forty million huge mammals that were destroyed and deposited in these places during the poleshift of 10,000 bce.

books for the gullible. Stop already with the pole shift until you get a physicist to bless off on it--a real physicist. You don't listen and remember very well do you?


The huge waves that rushed north swept all the megafauna, forests, and rocks in their path, moving in a northwest direction across North America, being channeled thru the ice-free corridor of the northwest between the towering glaciers. Depositing a portion of its burden before the flank of Alaska's southern glacier, and carrying the rest across northern Alaska, that was never glaciated, and across the Aleutians into Siberia. Perhaps much of the wave passed north over the globe, then south into Siberia, before dropping its terrible burden. In crossing our continent this salt water wave passed thru many huge glacial lakes, so the water after reaching Siberia had less salt content, and was able to freeze very quickly, preserving the bodies much like a freezer, for thousands of years. They were frozen very fast, and never thawed during these twelve thousand years. Dogs and wolves fed upon this flesh, when first uncovered. Even men sampled the meat with no ill effect. The last meal of buttercups was still in the mouth of one creature. The disaster was so sudden that none showed fear, but seemed in the midst of casual browsing.

Quoting from Dr Hibben's book, "The Lost Americans" :

"In many places the Alaskan muck blanket is packed with animal bones and debris in trainload lots."

"Within this mass, frozen solid. lie the twisted parts of animals and trees intermingled with lenses of ice and layers of peat and mosses. It looks as though in the middle of some catacystimic catastrophe. . . the whole Alaskan world of living animals and plants was suddenly frozen in mid- motion in a grim charade" (Frank C. Hibben, The Lost Americans, New York; Apollo Editions, 1961. pp. 90, 91).


This is pure ignorantia. No wave deposited the mammoths. Especially no flood did this. There are several thousand feet of sediment beneath the Tertiary muck of Alaska and I can tell you, most of that sediment is glacial till. What does that mean? Glacial till is the rocks left by glaciers which means that there were ice sheets long before the muck with the bones was laid down. And the rocks which were deposited were the result of slow moving glaciers and it all couldn't have fit into a single year's flood. Secondly, this muck is on top of the present land surface which means that it had to have taken place at the end of your global flood of a year long duration. Where were these animals stored while 75,000 feet of sediment was being deposited in various places around the world?

For example, in the Alaskan muck, stomachs of frozen mammoths have been discovered. These frozen stomach masses contain the leaves and grasses the animals had just eaten before death struck. Seemingly, no animal was spared.

If these mammoths were eating minutes before death, and they are in the latest part of the flood when the world was covered with water, what were they eating? Squid? Start thinking logically LIon.



"The best approach is to first acquaint the reader with the facts of the end of the Pleistocene Age, circa 10,000 bce, when the megafauna of the Americas were totally destroyed, and became extinct. It will be shown that this was caused by a sudden and most violent disaster of global proportions. The whole earth was affected by this event, but the worst of the disaster was seen in the Americas and Siberia.

The megafauna became extinct most likely due to Native Americans hunting them to death not due to a big wave. Why is your wave only found in the arctic and not in Oklahoma? Were there no animals for the global flood to kill in Oklahoma? Explain this please.


The Discover magazine had an article some months back about another gold mine near Dawson where they have unearthed thousands of bison bones with fresh appearing marrow. They were unearthed by hydraulic mining. This falsifies the local mesopotamian flood idea.

The fresh marrow is because they were FROZEN lion. It's COLD up there if you haven't heard. For petes sake, what is wrong with your reasoning powers? ARe you not skeptical about anything?

[Lion]

Obviously nothing I say will convince your closed mind, so I bid you goodby and I consider your opinion to be less valuable than a bucket of cold manure. At least that might fertilize a garden. Yours won't.

[grmorton]

Obviously nothing I say will convince your closed mind, so I bid you goodby and I consider your opinion to be less valuable than a bucket of cold manure. At least that might fertilize a garden. Yours won't.


It is interesting that you say this when challenged to actually EXPLAIN some of the problems geology presents to the flood. Why is it that YECs always run when it is time to explain things?

[Jack777]

Lion,


I am glad to see that grmorton acts like other people are idiots besides me if we do not fall at this feet.
There is scientific evidence about the earth's tilt on its axis from impact by a near earth object. It is not crucial to me, but you are right and grmorton is wrong. I have some links you can check out. I think it was Berkeley that did the research or CalPoly.

[grmorton]

Lion,


I am glad to see that grmorton acts like other people are idiots besides me if we do not fall at this feet.
There is scientific evidence about the earth's tilt on its axis from impact by a near earth object. It is not crucial to me, but you are right and grmorton is wrong. I have some links you can check out. I think it was Berkeley that did the research or CalPoly.

I just love this. anonymous references

[Lion]

Thanks, Jack. I needed some ecouragement after being sneered at by Morton.

I had not intended to reply to Morton, but I have thought better of it. Glenn, the problem with the evolution crowd is that they always have a fall back position, that it happened so slowly. Seriously, I want to ask you about something. Give me a serious answer, not some snide, sneering response.

I live in northern Alabama. There are thousands of feet of sedimentary limestone all up the Appalachian range. There are layers upon layers of limestone that can be traced for miles. Most of those layers are conformable, that is, they look like they were laid in succesive pours of cement with just a bit of wet dirt between. Sometimes the layer is perhaps two inches thick, and the next layer is six feet thick. Slow sedimentation? I doubt it. I looked at the web reference, but think you have it all wrong. Where did all the limestone come from?

[grmorton]

I live in northern Alabama. There are thousands of feet of sedimentary limestone all up the Appalachian range. There are layers upon layers of limestone that can be traced for miles. Most of those layers are conformable, that is, they look like they were laid in succesive pours of cement with just a bit of wet dirt between. Sometimes the layer is perhaps two inches thick, and the next layer is six feet thick. Slow sedimentation? I doubt it. I looked at the web reference, but think you have it all wrong. Where did all the limestone come from?

The limestone precipitated out of the sea water via the metabolic processes of bacteria and invertebrates. While you may doubt it, if you had turbulence of the flood going on when those fine layers were deposited, you would not have uniform layers. Everything should be stirred up and mixed up. Turbulence of rapid sedimentation gives no time for the sediments to sort themselves out into their various constituents. Therefore, the very existence of those fine layers which can be traced for miles is evidence AGAINST your position.

Secondly, many (not all) limestones are chock full of fossils. This limestone is from England, but it ties into the Appalachians when England and North America were united prior to the breakup of Pangaea. Note that most of the rock is crinoids (we called them Indian beads in Oklahoma where I grew up because they used to be used for that by Native Americans).

[attachment=1]

Here is another limestone with lots of shells in it. We find such deposits sitting on modern reef embankments.

[attachment=2]

Now, instead of saying I am not treating you well, please explain the geological issues I raise on my page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geology.htm If the flood is correct, you will be able to do that. If not, you won't.

Oh yeah, here is a seismic line between Alabama and Mississippi. This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/appalach1.htm

[attachment=3]


On the AIG web site we find silly statements like that made by Michael Oard, "Observing the rocks in my part of the world, I find examples
that would line up with part or even most of the geological column, but other examples that are out of order. These out-of-order areas are
usually attributed to overthrusting, of which there is rarely evidence for much movement while abundant evidence for rock shearing is seen
on other types of faults. " http://www.answersingenesis.org/hom..._extinction.asp

Such statements display a huge lack of knowledge of the geologic record. Overthrusts are common, always have evidence and are never like
what the YECs portray them to be. Below is a seismic line which shows a major overthrust, a major erosional event and then more
deposition followed by tilting of the entire subregional part of the continent.


The line was one shot by Texaco along the Alabama/Mississippi border just NE of Meridian, Mississippi. The reference is A. W. Bally,
_Seismic Expression of Structural Styles, Vol. 3, AAPG Studies in Geology Series, #15,, p. 3.4.1-82. It shows a wonderful example of
why slow sedimentation must be the rule and presents a big problem for the global flood. A word about seismic. The black peaks and grey
troughs are the reflections of sound off of various rock layers which are in the earth. By reflecting the sound, we can produce a picture, like
this, of what the earth looks like under one's feet. The picture is about 20 km of seismic data. It can be seen that the valley in the
unconformity is about 3 km wide. The thrust block is about 16 km or 9 miles long. Such pictures are no different than what a doctor
produces when they do a sonogram.
>
At the top of the section are the sediments of the Atlantic coastal plains. They are flatish-lying dipping slightly to the SE. They are about
3500 feet thick and consist mostly of sands and shales. They lie on top of a major unconformity which separates the Paleozoic Appalachian
sediments from the Atlantic Coastal plain sediments. Below the unconformity is the Paleozoic sediments which consist not only of sands and
shales but also very thick piles of carbonate and dolomite. dolomite. They are around 18,500 feet thick. This is determined by the velocity
of sound in those sediments. Rocks in the Paleozoic are almost always faster than rocks in the younger Mesozoic and Mesozoic rocks in
general are even faster than those from the Tertiary.
>
If you look below the unconformity you will find a thrust fault having thrusted the Paleozoic sediments over o