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 on top of themselves Bed a is
marked on both sides of the thrust fault and one can clearly see that it is overthrusted on top of itself. The friction of the thrust plane against
the upper part of the thrust caused the sediments to be folded. The fold was then eroded. Since bed A to the right is buried by 1.3 seconds
of Paleozoic sediment (approximately 10,000 feet), yet it intersects the unconformity where it is covered by NO Paleozoic sediment, this
means that 10,000 feet of sediment was eroded from the point marked 'hill'. If you look at the sediments just under the unconformity on the
right and move to the left you will see layer after layer erosionally truncated by the unconformity until you get to hill where bed A is at the
surface of the unconformity.
>
Where I marked a hill, If you look at the unconformity, you will see that it drops down at that point. the flat reflectors above are clearly
onlapping the unconformable surface against the hill. The valley was eroded into the underlying Paleozoic sediments PRIOR to the
deposition of the Mesozoic sediment. If you look just to the right of the hill, under the word valley, above the unconformity you will see a
black reflector which runs into the hill to the left and then into the unconformity on the right. The relationship between this reflector and the
unconformity shows that the valley to the right of the hill was infilled in a rather gentle way otherwise the sediments would be chaotic. This
valley was probably an arm of the ocean at one point because the sediments that fill it are marine as are all the Atlantic Coastal Plain
sediments.
>
After the Mesozoic sediments were deposited, the entire area was slightly tilted to the SE.
>
The sequence of events cause great problems for the concept of a global flood. Global flood advocates always say that fossilization can only
occur during catastrophic events such as the flood. Well there are fossiliferous Paleozoic sediments below the unconformity as well as
above. Thus the flood advocate must hold that all the sediment in this picture is from the flood. This means that during the flood 18,500 feet
of Paleozoic sediment must have been deposited. It must then have hardened. Why? Because of the way the thrusting deformed the rocks.
This is not a soft-sediment type of deformation. The upper thrust block moved as a solid block. If the sediments had been soft, this couldn't
have happened. Soft ooze and mush won't transmit forces for 9 miles. Assuming that the Paleozoic constituted half of the flood's time, then
in 6 months we must deposit 18,500 feet of sediment. This is a rate of 102 feet per day. There are slow-moving invertebrate fossils at the
bottom of the Appalachian Paleozoic as well as at the top. All sorts of stationary shell-fish are found throughout the Paleozoic strata. Why
everything wasn't at the bottom of the pile, after deposition of the first 102 feet on the first day, I can't comprehend. A further problem is
the burrows which are found throughout the entire 18,500 feet of sediment. One must have exceptionally rapid burrowers in order to
thoroughly burrow 102 feet of strata a day. That is enough sediment to cover a 10 story building each day. Next time you drive down the
road, look at a ten story building and imagine it covered in sediment in one day and thoroughly burrowed by thousands of animals.
Burrowed in such a fashion where the excavated sediments make a pile around the burrow which are then covered by the next layer which
is a different lithology.
>
After the deposition of 18,500 feet of strata, and it's hardening (it takes lots of time for shales to de-water, yet we see no mega water
escape structures in this sedimentary pile either), we must then have the time to thrust the paleozoic section creating huge mountains (the
Appalachians). After this, we must have time for the erosion of 10,000 feet of HARDENED sediment, which then becomes the
unconformity surface. Then we must cover, in a gentle way, the entire area with 3,500 feet of Mesozoic sediment. This is a rate of 19 feet a
day assuming that the Mesozoic here represented 180 days of flood deposition. One could hardly say that 19 feet a day of sedimentation is
'gentle'. 19 feet of sediment where I live would nearly cover my 2 story house.

I don't see how to explain this in a global flood/young-earth scenario. It is time for young-earthers like Socrates to come explain how this fits
into a global flood. The YEC silence is deafening on these posts.(Jorge, here is your chance to show why you all don't need a protected area --see his locker room thread). Can't y'all explain them?

Can you also explain why such data doesn't appear in creationist literature?

[Lion]

Glenn, let me add another mystery to your questions. I looked at a number of the blurbs you presented and in one of them you said slow deposion was the rule. I wonder how you explain a tree trunk extending through 15 or 20 strata layers? If the tree died after several layers, and most trees die after being buried that way, why didn’t the top rot off if the deposition was as slow as you say?

I have seen the fossil tree of Yellowstone canyon. Frankly, I don’t believe the explanation on the sign beside the tree. A better explanation would be that the canyon was washed out after the tree was deposited there. A similar situation exists in Spirit lake near St. Helens. Many trees were blown down in the eruption and some ended up in the lake with a big root ball at the bottom. I imagine the Yellowstone tree was similar.

Incidentally, the grand canyon was one grand washout that didn’t happen over millions of years. It happened rapidly, probably over a year or so. The land is higher than the land east of the canyon. There was a big lake east of the grand canyon My wife and I made a trip between Flagfstaff and Page, Az in 2000. After we passed the little Colorado, I was amazed at what I saw. There must have been thousands of little pimples, (for want of a better name) small spires, that seemed to be cut off at the same level, as if there had been a lake there. Each lttle pimple appeared to have a small stick of wood on top. I don’t have any explanaton except that there was apparently was a lake there that drained and the wood just stayed on top. The little Colorado started there. The explanation given by Morris seems better than the ages and eons of the evoltionary guys.

I can’t answer all the objections you pose because I am not a geologist, but I still think the worldwide flood is the best explanation. There are unexplained things that are a mystery, but I trust the Bible rather than some geoligist who wants to palm off millions of years. Incdentally you referred to Oard in one of your blurbs I take anything he says with a tubfull of salt

You referred in an earlier post to people becoming atheist because of the teaching that is so prevalent in our schools. Your teaching is only one step away from athesm. Mine rejects evolution absolutely and there is no room for atheism.

[grmorton]

Glenn, let me add another mystery to your questions. I looked at a number of the blurbs you presented and in one of them you said slow deposion was the rule. I wonder how you explain a tree trunk extending through 15 or 20 strata layers? If the tree died after several layers, and most trees die after being buried that way, why didn’t the top rot off if the deposition was as slow as you say?

First off, I don't explain hypothetical trees. Tell me where exactly this tree is, what are the layers and how you know it is 15 to 20 strata. Without that information, all you have is an assertion that such a tree exists. I have never seen such a thing.


I have seen the fossil tree of Yellowstone canyon. Frankly, I don’t believe the explanation on the sign beside the tree. A better explanation would be that the canyon was washed out after the tree was deposited there. A similar situation exists in Spirit lake near St. Helens. Many trees were blown down in the eruption and some ended up in the lake with a big root ball at the bottom. I imagine the Yellowstone tree was similar.

What you imagine and what is are two different things. Start citing articles where you get this nonsense. Tell me what author, what journal and what page. One can't seriously discuss things unless one has some specific thing to talk about.

Just because you read something in some creationist rag doesn't mean that the rag is right.

Incidentally, the grand canyon was one grand washout that didn’t happen over millions of years. It happened rapidly, probably over a year or so. The land is higher than the land east of the canyon. There was a big lake east of the grand canyon My wife and I made a trip between Flagfstaff and Page, Az in 2000. After we passed the little Colorado, I was amazed at what I saw. There must have been thousands of little pimples, (for want of a better name) small spires, that seemed to be cut off at the same level, as if there had been a lake there. Each lttle pimple appeared to have a small stick of wood on top. I don’t have any explanaton except that there was apparently was a lake there that drained and the wood just stayed on top. The little Colorado started there. The explanation given by Morris seems better than the ages and eons of the evoltionary guys.

That won't work. There is evidence of massive erosion above the Grand Canyon removing almost all the rocks above the plateau before the canyon was carved. This is from my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/karst.htm

A karst is a sinkhole caused by a collapsed cave. Florida gets a few of these each year. The picture below shows buried sinkholes in the ocean sediments off of Australia. the little circular things.

[attachment=1]

On the SE edge of the Grand Canyon there is Cedar Mtn, which is formed out of Triassic strata. It is only a tiny outlier of the Triassic which once covered the entire Grand canyon area prior to the Canyon’s erosion. As one travels north from the northern rim of the Canyon, one can find the Canyon wall sediments being buried by Triassic and then the Triassic being buried by still younger strata in turn. Because of this Cedar Mtn outlier, we know that at least the Triassic strata covered the canyon and has now all been eroded away. (To move that much rock also requires considerable time).

But what does this have to do with karst sinkholes? Well, the Mississippian Redwall limestone, which is one of the cliff forming units in the Grand Canyon we find ancient sinkholes.

"The breccia pipes formed as sedimentary strata collapsed into dissolution caverns in the underlying Mississippian Redwall Limestone. Upward stoping through the upper Paleozoic and lower Mesozoic strata, involving units as high as the Triassic Chinle Formation." ~ Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, "Breccia Pipes and Associated
mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress, Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 212

and

"1. An extensive karst developed on the emergent Redwall surface during Late Mississippian time. The Grand Canyon breccia pipes are associated with this Mississippian karst; cavities from this karst served as nucleation points for upward stoping. The modern Yucatan karst provides an excellent analogue for Late Mississippian conditions in the
Grand Canyon." Karen J. Wenrich and Peter W. Huntoon, "Breccia Pipes and Associated mineralization in the Grand Canyon Region, Northern Arizona," Geology of the Grand Canyon, Northern Arizona, 28th Int. Geol. Congress,
Field Trip Guide Book, (Washington: AGU, 1989), p. 215

Thus, the Redwall caves didn’t collapse until after several hundred feet of sediment was deposited above them. These sediments include the Surprise Canyon formation, the Supai Group, the Hermit shale, the Coconino Sandstone, the Toroweap formation, the Kaibab Limestone and the Triassic up to at least the Triassic Chinle formation. Then the cave collapsed allowing some of the Chinle rocks to fall into the old cave in the Redwall formation. The rocks in the pipes are not soft sediment—they were hard rock when the cave collapsed. The boulders are angular and only hard rocks can sustain angular shapes.


Thus we must have the following sequence of events to explain the data:
1. Cambrian through Mississippian Redwall be deposited.
2. Redwall must be uplifted above sea water.
3. Freshwater rain must dissolve the limestone—lots of time
4. Caves must be lowered again.
5. Surprise Canyon, Supai Group, Hermit Shale, Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap group, Kaibab Limestone and Triassic up to the Chinle must be deposited.
6. Rocks must be hardened
7. The cave collapses allowing Chinle to fall into cave
8. Younger sediments which today lie only north of the Canyon were deposited.
9. Regional erosion removes thousands of cubic km of Triassic and younger rocks from Grand Canyon area

Young-earth creationism has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Now, the sediment from the Chinle, found in the collapsed sinkholes of the Grand Canyon shows that the Chinle was deposited above the canyon, hardened, and then collapsed into the sinkhole. then erosion removed all the Chinle BEFORE the Grand Canyon was cut



I can’t answer all the objections you pose because I am not a geologist, but I still think the worldwide flood is the best explanation.

In other words, it doesn't matter what I say you will just ignore it---and you wonder why I get snide on occasion. If you don't care what the evidence says, what on earth are you doing out here talking about the evidence? Go away be quite. Evidence doesn't matter to you so don't discuss it and try to appear oh so scientific.

There are unexplained things that are a mystery, but I trust the Bible rather than some geoligist who wants to palm off millions of years. Incdentally you referred to Oard in one of your blurbs I take anything he says with a tubfull of salt

So do I. Oard won't pay attention to data anymore than you do.

You referred in an earlier post to people becoming atheist because of the teaching that is so prevalent in our schools. Your teaching is only one step away from athesm. Mine rejects evolution absolutely and there is no room for atheism.

No, I said that people become atheists because the YECs offer nothing but delusions instead of reality. The atheists offer real explanations for real observational data. Go look at my post on that tree found in Tennessee. Why do you think that not a single YEC has attempted an explanation of it in over 24 hours? Do you think it might be because they are ignoring data like you do?

[Lion]

Glenn, I'm not ignoring your last post. I had something written up before I read your last post that will come later.

I looked at the cobble examples from your web page I agree that it does look like compressed stone and I have no answer for how long to took to form from whatever materials were available. You say it took a long time. A long time is not measured in hours, days or years. I know your time scale may be different than mine. There are other mysteries as well.

I grew up in central Oregon. I have traveled all over the area and am very familiar with the geology there. There are several ice caves in the area. I corresponded with the man from Seattle who thought the ice caves were a leftover from some astral impact that left the ice.

The ice caves were not what the man thought. I have been in several of those caves because in the 1920 era my father was a logger and the logging camp had no refrigeration. We used lanterns and kerosene lamps. On the fourth of July we wanted ice cream so we made a trip to the nearest ice cave and made hand cranked ice cream. I remember going into the Arnold cave. The cave was in a large pit about 200 feet across and 75 or 80 feet deep. Central Oregon is arid, perhaps 10 or 12 inches a year. The ice had been dug out so passage could be made beyond the ice into a lava tube and there was a small stream of water flowing. The last time I visited there was in the summer of 1940. The cave entrance was completely blocked with ice. The stream had put out enough vapor that the freezing weather froze it and it didn’t melt in the summer.

Why do I tell that story? Because some people get some fantastic ideas that have no basis in fact. I don’t have all the answers, just like I can’t explain some of the mysteries you find in the oil wells. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation.

Another observation. The Deschutes river flows north. It is on the surface at Bend and drops into a canyon probably five or six hundred feet deep. I have been in that canyon numerous times. There are many strata. At the top is a volcanic ash layer perhaps five feet deep. Next is a layer of lava several feet deep. Then comes several feet of gravel, coarse six inch rounded rocks, with smaller gravel at the bottom, another layer of lava and more gravel and finally a thick layer of sandstone of unknown depth.

The entire Cascade range is volcanic. There are numerous places where the lava could have come from. But where did the rounded gravel come from? And it came several times. The only explanation I can come up with is the world wide flood. The Americas slid west and slid over the ocean crust. The theory is that when the ocean crust slides under the continent, volcanoes can erupt. Whether the continent sldes or the ocean floor is subducted makes little difference. If the Americas slid west that would account for the extreme depths around the Pacific rim and the volcanism of the Andes and the north American west. The water washed the gravel between the eruptions.

[grmorton]

Glenn, I'm not ignoring your last post. I had something written up before I read your last post that will come later.

I looked at the cobble examples from your web page I agree that it does look like compressed stone and I have no answer for how long to took to form from whatever materials were available. You say it took a long time. A long time is not measured in hours, days or years. I know your time scale may be different than mine. There are other mysteries as well.

I grew up in central Oregon. I have traveled all over the area and am very familiar with the geology there. There are several ice caves in the area. I corresponded with the man from Seattle who thought the ice caves were a leftover from some astral impact that left the ice.

The ice caves were not what the man thought. I have been in several of those caves because in the 1920 era my father was a logger and the logging camp had no refrigeration. We used lanterns and kerosene lamps. On the fourth of July we wanted ice cream so we made a trip to the nearest ice cave and made hand cranked ice cream. I remember going into the Arnold cave. The cave was in a large pit about 200 feet across and 75 or 80 feet deep. Central Oregon is arid, perhaps 10 or 12 inches a year. The ice had been dug out so passage could be made beyond the ice into a lava tube and there was a small stream of water flowing. The last time I visited there was in the summer of 1940. The cave entrance was completely blocked with ice. The stream had put out enough vapor that the freezing weather froze it and it didn’t melt in the summer.

Why do I tell that story? Because some people get some fantastic ideas that have no basis in fact. I don’t have all the answers, just like I can’t explain some of the mysteries you find in the oil wells. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an explanation.

Another observation. The Deschutes river flows north. It is on the surface at Bend and drops into a canyon probably five or six hundred feet deep. I have been in that canyon numerous times. There are many strata. At the top is a volcanic ash layer perhaps five feet deep. Next is a layer of lava several feet deep. Then comes several feet of gravel, coarse six inch rounded rocks, with smaller gravel at the bottom, another layer of lava and more gravel and finally a thick layer of sandstone of unknown depth.

The entire Cascade range is volcanic. There are numerous places where the lava could have come from. But where did the rounded gravel come from? And it came several times. The only explanation I can come up with is the world wide flood. The Americas slid west and slid over the ocean crust. The theory is that when the ocean crust slides under the continent, volcanoes can erupt. Whether the continent sldes or the ocean floor is subducted makes little difference. If the Americas slid west that would account for the extreme depths around the Pacific rim and the volcanism of the Andes and the north American west. The water washed the gravel between the eruptions.

I am amazed that the ONLY thing you can think of is a global flood. I suspect that if you tried you could also conceive of the geology being deposited with lots of time. But then, if you want a global flood and are unwilling to consider any world history without it, then I would understand why you couldn't think of any alternatives. It is a shame however how limiting to one's thought processes, young-earth creationism is.

As to the gravel you mention. You mention the rounded gravel. Well the rounded gravel is evidence of a long time period. If you go to a mountain side and look at the rocks which have broken off from a cliff, they are ANGULAR, sharpe-edged. They are anything but rounded. But if you go many miles down the river which drains that area and you will find that the rocks become more and more rounded. The rounding comes from the rocks bouncing around on a river bed for a while. The bouncing (during floods) chips the sharp edges off the rock creating the rounded rocks. But this takes time. It doesn't happen over night.

The lava and ash layers you mention are also evidence of a long time. Look at Mt. St. Helens. It erupted in 1980 spread ash all over the place. But it hasn't had a similar eruption now for 25 years. Volcanoes don't spew continuously. They can't. The pressure in the volcano is released at the eruption and it takes a while for it to repressurize. Certainly more than a year's worth of time.

[Lion]

Glenn, You are not the only one amazed. I have looked at most at the blurbs you posted on your the website and some of the pictures are quite impressive. I'd like to know a bit more about the way the shaker trucks operate. I have some experience with sonar, having worked for Honeywell and ridden on a submarine while a destroyer fired dummy torpedoes at the sub.

How does the shaker aim to get a narrow beam to get the detail of the deep strata? Also, can you tell me how they do it at sea. I know something about high power sonar. We used a barium titanate transducer and put out 3 kw pulses at 16 khz for 30 ms. The destroyer put out 40 kw using a magnetosrictive transducer. You could hear it all over the sub or destroyer and my hearing dropped off radically at about 12 khz.
-------------------
glenn
I am amazed that the ONLY thing you can think of is a global flood. I suspect that if you tried you could also conceive of the geology being deposited with lots of time.
-------------------
That's the problem in a nutshell. When I read the story of the flood I visualize a gigantic cataclysm that shook the earth to the bottom of the crust and perhaps the mantle.
-------------------
glenn
But then, if you want a global flood and are unwilling to consider any world history without it, then I would understand why you couldn't think of any alternatives. It is a shame however how limiting to one's thought processes, young-earth creationism is.
--------------------
On the contrary, I see a creator who, as these verses say:
Gen. 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen. 6:7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The creator was disappointed at the way things happened. But there was a deeper issue here. It was because of a battle between God and Satan. Satan had been kicked out of the heavenly courts and Satan had managed to infect the earth with the virus of sin.
---------------
glenn
As to the gravel you mention. You mention the rounded gravel. Well the rounded gravel is evidence of a long time period. If you go to a mountain side and look at the rocks which have broken off from a cliff, they are ANGULAR, sharpe-edged. They are anything but rounded. But if you go many miles down the river which drains that area and you will find that the rocks become more and more rounded. The rounding comes from the rocks bouncing around on a river bed for a while. The bouncing (during floods) chips the sharp edges off the rock creating the rounded rocks. But this takes time. It doesn't happen over night.
-----------------
Under ordinary circumstances as of today that is true. But this was no ordinary event It was a worldwide catastrophe. I know you have a differrent view. But a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates area simply won't cut it.

Even the uniformitarian people talk about continents moving. They think it happened slowly, and the YEC people think it happend in a year or so. I go back to Gen 7:11 where the fountains of the great deep were broken up. I don't know why the fountains were broken up, but it sounds like a calamity struck. not a local disaster. Whatever it was, the continents started moving.

The problem with the slow ages people is that they seem unable to think on a collossal scale. They have schooled themselves to think of things as they are now, and refuse to think of a cataclysm.
-----------
Glen
The lava and ash layers you mention are also evidence of a long time. Look at Mt. St. Helens. It erupted in 1980 spread ash all over the place. But it hasn't had a similar eruption now for 25 years. Volcanoes don't spew continuously. They can't. The pressure in the volcano is released at the eruption and it takes a while for it to repressurize. Certainly more than a year's worth of time.
-------------
I tend to agree under present circumstances. But we are talking about a cataclysm. Gelogists tell us that when the ocean floor dives under the continent, volcanoes may result. Consider, instead, a continent sliding over the ocean floor. It is relative. If the continent was sliding several miles a day, it wouldn't take long, certainly not years, for a new magma chamber to form. I view it as Noah recorded it. The flood lasted a bit over a year.

[gallileo]

Hmmm.

Sounds like,

Glen..."Here is some evidence"

Lion " the flood did it"

Glen..."Here is some more evidence"

Lion " the flood did it"

-----This is not science, it's a belief system---

==> Get deprogrammed, get a life.

[grmorton]

Glenn, You are not the only one amazed. I have looked at most at the blurbs you posted on your the website and some of the pictures are quite impressive. I'd like to know a bit more about the way the shaker trucks operate. I have some experience with sonar, having worked for Honeywell and ridden on a submarine while a destroyer fired dummy torpedoes at the sub.

Darn, I wrote a reply and it disappeared. here goes again

We don't send a focused beam. We send a wide beam and record the reflections with multiple microphones. In the picture below S is the shot which is made either by vibroseis (the shaker trucks), dynamite, or airgun.

[attachment=1]



The above picture represents one shot. we then move the shot to the left, move the cable to the left and repeat the process. Since the shot and receivers are equispaced, we collect multiple reflections off of the same point on the rock layers. We then add these up, which improves the signal to noise ratio and allows us to make the seismc cross sections I have shown on this list.

Most of the seismic frequencies are less than 60 hertz (much less often). But our receivers can pick up less than an angstrom's movement of the earth's surface so we can detect quite small energy reflections. However I was involved in a project which allowed the recording of 90 hz energy at 11,500 feet, which is quite an acheivement!

see Morton, G. R., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), "Reversing the Earth Filter: Thin-sand Detection Using Single Sensor Data," Petrol. Expl. Soc. of Great Britain's, PETEX 2002 Meeting Abstracts given in London, Dec. 10, 2002, CD from Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, London.

and

Morton, G. R., Dobb, Angela., Conway, Paul. and McHugo, Steve. (2002), "Acquisition of High Frequency Seismic and its Implications for Reservoir Management of the Murchison field, U.K. North Sea--A Case Study," 72nd Ann. Internatl. Mtg., Soc. Exploration Geophysicists Expanded Abstracts. p. 548-551

In the sea, we put the microphones on a floating cable and drag these cables (up to 12 km long) behind a boat. Airguns right behind the boat force compressed air into the water which causes the seismic signal. The principle is the same, we move the shot and cable along the water surface and collect multiple reflections from each sampled subsurface point.

[quote]-------------------
glenn
I am amazed that the ONLY thing you can think of is a global flood. I suspect that if you tried you could also conceive of the geology being deposited with lots of time.
-------------------
That's the problem in a nutshell. When I read the story of the flood I visualize a gigantic cataclysm that shook the earth to the bottom of the crust and perhaps the mantle.

At least you admit it. But a cataclysm doesn't in and of itself change the laws of nature and physics. In order to explain the geologic record you must explain the trees which had to put out roots instantely. That thread is in this forum. You must also explain why animals were walking around on layer after layer while the entire flood was occurring. Footprints are found from the Precambrian to the Tertiary, but you say there was a big cataclysm yet spiders were walking on the sands of the Coconino and dinosaurs and mammals were walking on other strata. You can't explain the burrows which are found throughout the entire geologic column. If there was a cataclysm you should not see this.



On the contrary, I see a creator who, as these verses say:
Gen. 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen. 6:7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

The creator was disappointed at the way things happened. But there was a deeper issue here. It was because of a battle between God and Satan. Satan had been kicked out of the heavenly courts and Satan had managed to infect the earth with the virus of sin.

I believe in a flood but I don't believe in the global flood you believe in because the geologic evidence simply isn't there to support it.


---------------
glenn
As to the gravel you mention. You mention the rounded gravel. Well the rounded gravel is evidence of a long time period. If you go to a mountain side and look at the rocks which have broken off from a cliff, they are ANGULAR, sharpe-edged. They are anything but rounded. But if you go many miles down the river which drains that area and you will find that the rocks become more and more rounded. The rounding comes from the rocks bouncing around on a river bed for a while. The bouncing (during floods) chips the sharp edges off the rock creating the rounded rocks. But this takes time. It doesn't happen over night.
-----------------
Under ordinary circumstances as of today that is true. But this was no ordinary event It was a worldwide catastrophe. I know you have a differrent view. But a local flood in the Tigris-Euphrates area simply won't cut it.

I wish you would do the work to understand the views of your debate opponent rather than assuming false things. I don't believe in a Tigris Euphrates flood but of course, like most YECs you won't go do the hard work to know what people actually beleive and what the data actually says.

As to the rounded rocks, consider this. Take a mayonaize jar, fill it with a few pieces of big gravel, a few pieces of small gravel, some sand, and some shale. Fill it with water, shake and set on your counter for a few days while the shale settles out. What you will see is that the coarsest particles are at the bottom, the small gravel on top of that the sand on top of that and the shale on the uppermost part of the sediment pile. (No yec yet to my knowledge has done this experiment). It applies to what happens if you stirred up all the world's sediments in a cataclysm. We should find boulders at the bottom, cobbles above the boulders, sand above the cobbles, shale above the sand. But that isn't what we find.

You frustrate me because you simply don't want to look at the evidence, like most YECs.

Even the uniformitarian people talk about continents moving. They think it happened slowly, and the YEC people think it happend in a year or so. I go back to Gen 7:11 where the fountains of the great deep were broken up. I don't know why the fountains were broken up, but it sounds like a calamity struck. not a local disaster. Whatever it was, the continents started moving.

The problem with the slow ages people is that they seem unable to think on a collossal scale. They have schooled themselves to think of things as they are now, and refuse to think of a cataclysm.

the problem with YECs is that they have never worked a seismic line professionally, they have never worked a well log, they have never been on a geologic field trip to actually look at the rocks (except maybe with Austin down the Grand Canyon but he won't tell you the whole story), and then you all feel that you know what happened anyway.

You wouldn't tell your brain surgeon that there was no such thing as a cerebellum, yet you think you have the knowledge to tell a geologist what is in the geologic column without even looking at the geological data.

I tend to agree under present circumstances. But we are talking about a cataclysm. Gelogists tell us that when the ocean floor dives under the continent, volcanoes may result. Consider, instead, a continent sliding over the ocean floor. It is relative. If the continent was sliding several miles a day, it wouldn't take long, certainly not years, for a new magma chamber to form. I view it as Noah recorded it. The flood lasted a bit over a year.

A cataclysm doesn't change the laws of physics but you act as if it does.

[Lion]

Glenn, you frustrate me, too. I'm trying to understand something. Your explanation of what I saw in the Deschutes canyon and elesewhere leaves me puzzled. You tell me that a jar full of different sizes of rock shaken vigorously won't settle out with the biggest rocks on top? Think again. I have done too much gold mining to believe that. The fine stuff in a flowing stream ALWAYS settles out on the bottom. That's the principle of the sluice box. You have a big box of gravel and dirt. You turn on a big stream of water and shovel iin the stuff. The rocks go out and the fine stuff settles on some riffles on the bottom. The density of rock is the same regardless of size.

The flood was a gigantic amount of water flowing. A river is a good example. The sand and fine stuff is ALWAYS below the bigger rocks Tell me something I can believe next time. The problem comes when you try to convince me what I can see in any river isn't so. You claim you are an educated man. You better study your basic physics again.

Thank you for explaining how siesmic imaging works It's like side looking radar. It works on differences in the reflected echoes.

Let me ask you where petroleum comes from? Is it from animal or vegetable sources? Why do we have to drill so deep for it?

[geochron]

So you're saying that if I shake up a shovel full of yard dirt in water, then leave it, the pebbles will stay suspended in the water while the fine dust sinks straight to the bottom?

Or if I throw a shovelful of dirt into a river, 2 inch diameter rocks will be carried along by the current while the fine particles will sink straight to the bottom?

Hmmmm.

But I think you're missing the point anyway - even if your ordering is correct, Glenn's point is that there is no ordering in sediments either your way or his. If i'm not mistaken, that is.

(Still disappointed nobody has noticed my spiffy new avatar, btw)

[grmorton]

Glenn, you frustrate me, too. I'm trying to understand something. Your explanation of what I saw in the Deschutes canyon and elesewhere leaves me puzzled. You tell me that a jar full of different sizes of rock shaken vigorously won't settle out with the biggest rocks on top? Think again. I have done too much gold mining to believe that. The fine stuff in a flowing stream ALWAYS settles out on the bottom. That's the principle of the sluice box. You have a big box of gravel and dirt. You turn on a big stream of water and shovel iin the stuff. The rocks go out and the fine stuff settles on some riffles on the bottom. The density of rock is the same regardless of size.

No, the fine stuff doesn't settle out first. Stokes' law is what governs this and it says that the big particles and the densest particles will settle out first. It is why gold falls to the bottom -- it is more dense than particles of equal size. A sluice gate has riffles which create low pressure zones which allow the collection of the fines in a protected area downstream of the riffle. So, your sluicebox analogy is not what we have in the global flood. There were no riffles.

Geochron is right and you should listen to him, but you won't.



The flood was a gigantic amount of water flowing. A river is a good example. The sand and fine stuff is ALWAYS below the bigger rocks Tell me something I can believe next time. The problem comes when you try to convince me what I can see in any river isn't so. You claim you are an educated man. You better study your basic physics again.

You don't know much about sedimentation. The sand and stuff falls into the tiny crevices between the bigger rocks AFTER the big rocks are laid down. Now, if you shake a jar of rocks, the smaller rocks will be on the bottom because when you move the big rocks up, the fines fall into the void and the big rock can't fall down to the level it was at anymore.


But if you stir the rocks up and let them settle out, the big rocks are left at the bottom and this is what the global flood would have had to do.

Let me ask you where petroleum comes from? Is it from animal or vegetable sources? Why do we have to drill so deep for it?

Most petroleum comes from the remains of microscopic marine animals. We have to drill so deep for it because we have produced most of the shallow oil fields already. In the Gulf of Mexico the industry is not engaging in drilling wells deeper than 6 miles deep.

[grmorton]

(Still disappointed nobody has noticed my spiffy new avatar, btw)

What kind of igneous crystals are those?

[geochron]

What kind of igneous crystals are those?

Chondrules; I happened across a porphyritic one, a barred one and a radiating one all in the same shot. It's the LL3.6 chondrite Parnallee.

[Lion]

I guess I got told. I'm still puzzed about those rocks in the canyon I have looked at those rocks many times. I will admit there was little or no sand in that layer, just rock, and it wasn't broken up lava, but hard rock. Lava is a different texture. I'm familliar with lava.

You mentioned the riffles in gold mining. Lava is not smooth, It has little things like riffles that can collect sand, but there wasn't much sand. It appears to me that there was an uplift in the western US beginning about Denver where the North Anerican plate ran over the ocean crust and raised it up. Vocanoes erupted, Then gravel washed after the magma pool had subsided. The continent was still sliding west and another magma pool erupted. That all happened in a few months.

I guess the main difference between us is that you have the idea that TIME is slow and I say the flood was all over in a bit over a year, based on Gen 7 and 8. But If the flood was not worldwide, where did all those layers of lava and gravel come from? They are layer on layer. And the elevation is about 4,000 feet. As I say, there were some mighty big eruptions like crater lake and Newberry crater plus the cascade range. It all comes down to belief. The Bible or evolution. There is no other choice.

[grmorton]

I guess the main difference between us is that you have the idea that TIME is slow and I say the flood was all over in a bit over a year, based on Gen 7 and 8. But If the flood was not worldwide, where did all those layers of lava and gravel come from? They are layer on layer. And the elevation is about 4,000 feet. As I say, there were some mighty big eruptions like crater lake and Newberry crater plus the cascade range. It all comes down to belief. The Bible or evolution. There is no other choice.


Well you are perfectly free to hold that view, but I don't think you can hold it and be logical at all. Let's look at your year long flood.

In My part of the world, underneath Houston lies over 40,000 feet of sediment. The Cretaceous rocks are somewhere around 36,000 feet beneath us. These are the rocks which have dinosaur footprints on them anywhere they come to the surface--including where the Llano batholith brings them to the surface from a huge depth. and they have dino tracks on them. If I drive from here to Austin, those Cretaceous beds with their dino tracks are outcropping on the surface of the earth and you can walk along them from the Rio Grande to Oklahoma.all that distance they have footrpints.

Now, This bed with footprints OVERLIES the Haymond formation I have mentioned from time to time. The Haymond formation is unique

"Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repetitious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick."

Burrows, filled by the sand when the sand was deposited are found on every single layer of these beds. This means that the animals burrowed into the shale but didn't burrow into the sand. It also means that every time a sand body was deposited, the burrows had been made and were ready to be filled by the loose sand.

Now here is why you are illogical if you hold that all this was deposited in a single year by a global flood.

Lets try to explain this in a one year flood. Give each shale layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years to be deposited. But that is a real problem. The Haymond bed is 1300 m thick and only represents a small part of the entire geologic column. All the fossiliferous sediments in this area are 5000 m in thickness. To do the entire column in one year requires 1300/5000*365=95 days for the time over which the Haymond must be deposited. This means that 157 sand/shale couplets per day must be deposited. That means that the burrowers must repopulate the shale 157 times per day, dig holes, be buried, then survive the burial to dig again another 156 times that day. Shoot, Sisyphus only had to roll the boulder uphill once a day. What on earth did these burrowers do to deserve this young-earth fate?

Now,the Haymond beds dip to the east and are buried by younger rocks. These are also Pennsylvanian rocks. But let's travel just 10 miles to the east of of the Haymond beds. They have been covered by the younger Pennsylvanian rocks, and those in turn are covered by, you guessed it, Cretaceous rocks with those dinosaur tracks we spoke of above. These cretaceous beds cover southeastern Texas like a big blanket. We drill through them and to them in our search for oil, but we know that these Cretaceous rocks continue to dip to the east into the Gulf of Mexico where they are buried by as much as 50,000 feet of sediment. We actually see them in an oil well out in southern Garden Banks about 150 south of New Orleans.

Anyway, here is an additional problem for those like you who believe in a global flood. How do you have time, for the worms to burrow 15,000 layers, and then still have time for the dinosaurs to walk along the Texas coast. If you haven't seen any pictures of the Tsunami (which is about as close as one can get to what the global flood might have looked like, you will know that even 200 ton ships got kicked around and destroyed. How on earth can you logically say that the dinosaurs could still be walking around after 5000 m of the Haymond was deposited? Your position is so poorly thought out and illogical. Your YEC leaders NEVER talk about these issues. They simply hide them. And you simply accept what you are told without any thought at all. You believe. But you aren't believing God, you are beleiving a man who isn't telling you what is really out there in geology.

Frankly, I feel sorry for you and others trapped in the YEC paradigm. I am glad I escaped. I am glad Constantine escaped. It is one of the most perfidious belief systems around. And you will continue believing what they spoon feed you, never thinking that what they tell you isn't really true.

[Lion]

Glenn, I have to confess I have a hard time understanding all the things that went on during the flood. It all comes down to belief. I can't understand all the things you find in the earth, but I am torn between a strong belief in the scriptures as the inspired word of God and what you present as found in the earth. I have observed many things in the earth that have no explanation, unless there was some colossal upheaval.

Not far from here is Little River canyon. Little River is a sometimes stream. It usually has just a trickle, but after a heavy rain it can flow a large volume of water. I have seen animal tracks that were in sandstone obviously heading to a cliff. The animal was running for some reason. A year or so later I looked for the tracks and they were gone. The whole strata was gone. What had happened was the runoff had shoved the whole mass of sandstone over a clifff en masse. There it was, the whole layer, as a sheet, lying down fifty feet below. Now I have never seen that before. The canyon is several hundred feet deep. Evidently the sandstone sheet had arrived from somewhere upstream and got washed down where I saw it first.

What I am getting at is that water can do strange things. I have no explanation for worm burrows lying below dinasour tracks except to say that things were stirred up thousands of feet deep in the flood. And the sand must have filled the worm burrows and then slid the material with the dinosaur tracks on top of that strata.

Now I know you have a hard time visualizing a catastrophe that collossal, but that is what I believe happened. One more thing. The road along the edge of the canyon passes between two sandstone blocks about five feet high.
the sandstone is filled with snail shells. What is it doing in that location? Unfortunately vandals spray painted graffiti and the shells are gone. Somebody sand blasted them smooth. There must have been a lot of water along there.

[grmorton]

Glenn, I have to confess I have a hard time understanding all the things that went on during the flood. It all comes down to belief. I can't understand all the things you find in the earth, but I am torn between a strong belief in the scriptures as the inspired word of God and what you present as found in the earth. I have observed many things in the earth that have no explanation, unless there was some colossal upheaval.

Not far from here is Little River canyon. Little River is a sometimes stream. It usually has just a trickle, but after a heavy rain it can flow a large volume of water. I have seen animal tracks that were in sandstone obviously heading to a cliff. The animal was running for some reason.

I would ask this: How on earth do you know the animal was actually running? Did you measure the stride? Did you measure lots of strides with that kind of paw print to see that some were walking and some were differently spaced and thus they were running? I would bet that you didn't do any of that but merely believe that the animal was running because it fits into your preconception of the global flood.


A year or so later I looked for the tracks and they were gone. The whole strata was gone. What had happened was the runoff had shoved the whole mass of sandstone over a clifff en masse. There it was, the whole layer, as a sheet, lying down fifty feet below. Now I have never seen that before. The canyon is several hundred feet deep. Evidently the sandstone sheet had arrived from somewhere upstream and got washed down where I saw it first.

What I am getting at is that water can do strange things. I have no explanation for worm burrows lying below dinasour tracks except to say that things were stirred up thousands of feet deep in the flood. And the sand must have filled the worm burrows and then slid the material with the dinosaur tracks on top of that strata.

this is kind of a ridiculous attempted explanation. The Cretaceous strata you are now trying to say the flood 'slid' into place extends from southern Mexico all the way to New Jersey. It is several thousand feet thick in places. It also thickens in the previous topographic lows and thins over the previous topographic highs. This would be impossible if the big plate were slid into place. You can beleive what you want but please don't insult our intelligence by thinking you have an explanation worthy of listening to here.

Now I know you have a hard time visualizing a catastrophe that collossal, but that is what I believe happened.

No I don't. I was a YEC for 24 years of my adult life. I envisioned all sorts of catastrophic events in the flood. I gave up that nonsense because none of the geologic data matched the expectations of those cataclysms I was deluding myself into believing in.

You have said you can't explain the geology. But that means simply that your theory is wrong. Now you can go on believing whatsoever you think you want to beleive, but that doesn't mean that it actually happens. It is why I use talk about pigs flying (which you don't like). I can believe that pigs secretly fly at night and catch insects in the sky, but that doesn't mean it is actually true. Believing only heals Tinkerbell, it doesn't turn wishes into reality.

When belief doesn't match observation, belief becomes mere fideism. Blind faith lacking any supporting data.


One more thing. The road along the edge of the canyon passes between two sandstone blocks about five feet high.
the sandstone is filled with snail shells. What is it doing in that location? Unfortunately vandals spray painted graffiti and the shells are gone. Somebody sand blasted them smooth. There must have been a lot of water along there.

I would guess that the blocks were washed down river from somewhere else. What do you expect me to guess since you give such paltry data in regards to this rock.

[Jack777]

Lion, I am glad you are still asking questions and want to know things. It seems terrible to some that you are not an expert on things, but do not worry, you know that to find out what you want to know is to ask questions. You are right that there was a global flood and there have been two floods on a regional basis since. They do not explain deposition of strata throughout the rock record. However, they do have a lot to do with human history. I refused to discuss evolution and science as it relates to the Bible for 30 years as it seems people of Faith are made to feel stupid if they are not experts about science and then some believers try to fight back by saying scientists are wrong for not thinking the earth was created in seven days. I admire you for your tenacious attitude toward learning.

[Lion]

Thanks, Jack. I am glad someone is looking at this discussion that has a sense of civillity without indulging in snide remarks and insults as Glenn has done. When a person is so stuck on his own superior smarts that he cannot discuss a subject without resorting to that kind of language, he has sunk lower than a snake and deserves to be treated like one.

[Jack777]

My thoughts are not as charitable as yours on that. LOL...

[Lion]

Jack, I have studied the evidences of the flood for over 70 years and it bothers me when someone like George is so opinionated and refuses to discuss the real issues.

For instance I think God knew how long the flood would last. He timed the flood so the start of the flood so the animals and people would have food to eat. We don't really know what caused the flood, whether some astral body hit the earth and caused it to be tilted so it causes the seasons or what. The only evidence we have is the last verse of Gen 8, where God tells about heat and cold, and the fact that the first humans wore no clothes and were not uncomfortable. This indicates that the earth was not tilted like it is now.

The flood started with the rupture of the crust where the fountains of the great deep burst open with great water spouts. (Gen 7:11) Evidently the water rushed into the gap far down where it is hot. The National Geographic had an article a few months ago about some strange sea life, blind shrimplike creatures in the deep sea where a "Black Smoker" was spouting 700 degree water. There are a lot of these black smokers scattered along a 44,000 mile scar under the sea.

Now, according to the handbook of Chemistry and physics, steam under 3080 PSI has a temperature of 700 deg F. 3184 PSI is the critical pressure for steam, corresponding to a depth of 6123 feet.

Here is an article from google, article black smokers.
Although it feels solid and hard beneath our feet, the outer surface of the Earth is a thin crust of fragile rock, fractured like the cracked shell of an egg. The pieces of the shell are Earth's tectonic plates -- there are 12 major ones -- and they float across a layer of soft rock like rafts in a stream, their motions driven by forces generated deep in the Earth. At their boundaries, the plates spread apart, converge, and slide past one another.

These boundaries, the danger lines described in the SAVAGE EARTH program "Hell's Crust," are the most geologically active regions on Earth. Here, new land is born of the Earth, and old land is consumed. Hot springs spew out mineral-rich waters, volcanoes erupt, and earthquakes tremble -- resulting in devastating tsunamis, floods, and mudslides.

Sager and Koppers, from Texas A&M did a lot of research and found that the earth was tipped, with the north pole being displaced as far as the northern cape of Norway.

The gyroscopic forces unleashed by the tipping action cannot be imagined. The continents were rearranged, with the Atlantic being created, and the midatlantic ridge being formed, part of that 44,000 mile scar where the original continent was torn apart. It is no wonder the evolutionary geolgists have difficulty understanding the colossal scale of the devastated orb that is our earth.

The Americas slid west and the rest slid east. They slid over the oceanic crust, heaping up the high areas of the western parts of the Americas and creating the volcanoes of the ring of fire that surrounds the Pacific. The evidence is plain to see, the great depths of the Pacific rim and the relatively shallow Atlantic continental shelf.

There are more things to consider. We mentioned the idea that God wanted to preserve life and provide food to eat. God knew where the Ark would land, so He must have started the flood in what would be in the northern spring, where things would have all summer to grow.

Now we consider the flood calendar as recorded in Gen 7 and 8.
Gen. 7:24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.
150 days is 5 months. If the flood started on the first of April this would take us to the first of September, autumn is about to begin.

Now we need to take a little side trip to Interstate 75, just northeast of Chattanooga Tennessee. A few miles down the road we come to some flashing yellow lights and a big warning sign warning of dense fog conditions at times. What had happened is that a paper company has some cooling ponds near the road and the vapor from the ponds can cause dense fog if the temperature drops below the dew point.

This is precisely the condition that prevailed during the flood. The earth and sea was warmer than it is now. The continents were being rearranged and the ocean currents were beginning to flow, clockwise in the northern hemisphere. The Gulf stream was pouring its water into the Arctic ocean, but the earth was beginning to tip north toward the winter night. The winter chill was beginning. The warm water produced fog, which caused immense amounts of snow. The warm ocean was an inexhaustible supply of vapor. The snow piled up and any creature that was unfortunate enough to be overwhelmed by the storm was quickly frozen wherever he stood. That there were a few scattered amimals is evidenced by the frozen wooly mammoths that have been found.

The snow continued to pile up until its weight depressed the land surface. Sweden and Norway have risen six hundred feet because of the melting ice load. Canada also has risen. It is possible that the red river of the north which has flooded several times in recent years has been caused by rising land in Canada.

There was an ice age and we think this was the cause.

[Jack777]

You point out some good things. Thank you. If interested I will dig into my files and my references or you can look at mine on the web. You have come to some accurate conclusions in your search in my opinion. The earthquake that caused the tsunami was small, yet affected the axis a small amount. You would not think so, but it did. The Mid-Oceanic Ridge in the Atlantic has been doing sea-floor spreading since before the Great Flood though. I have my own ideas about why the fountains of the deep opened up and in part I can agree with you. However, there is more I think. Thanks for sharing those things.

[Lion]

¥es, Jack, the Midatlantic ridge is still active. Iceland sits on top if that ridge, although it is no longer spreading at the rate it formerly did. The SE asia earthquake and tsunami that followed was probably caused by the removal of petroleum in that area. Estimates of the volume of gas and oil removed in that area exceed a cubic mile. Signal Hill in Long beach, Ca. is 75 feet lower than it used to be because so much oil was removed. Near Mobile Al. there have been 3.4 magnitude earthquakes because of the gas wells. People in Louisiana have been complaining that wetlands have been sinking because of offshore oil wells.

Do you have any data on the polar orientation of the earth as a result of the SE asia thing? I doubt there was any.

[Jack777]

I will have to look if you cannot find it, I did not record any files on it.

[grmorton]

The SE asia earthquake and tsunami that followed was probably caused by the removal of petroleum in that area. Estimates of the volume of gas and oil removed in that area exceed a cubic mile. Signal Hill in Long beach, Ca. is 75 feet lower than it used to be because so much oil was removed. Near Mobile Al. there have been 3.4 magnitude earthquakes because of the gas wells. People in Louisiana have been complaining that wetlands have been sinking because of offshore oil wells.

Do you have any data on the polar orientation of the earth as a result of the SE asia thing? I doubt there was any.


Pure silly ignorance boiled down to its purest essence. There was no oil being extracted anywhere within a couple of hundred miles of the epicenter.

The sinking of Louisiana has less to do with oil and gas than merely the dewatering of the sediments and the Army Corps of Engineers who won't allow the Missisiippi to change course to where it wants to go--- which is throught Morgan City. Certain problems will occur when this change of course takes place. New Orleans will become an economic disaster zone.

As to Mobile, you are absolutely out of your mind on this one. Go look at http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/eq2/eqtable.html

There has been only 1 earthquake in Mobile and it was BEFORE the oil and gas wells were drilled. The wells in Mobile bay are so deep that they were not being drillined on June 13, 1929 when the last earthquake occurred. By the way, the magnitude was not recorded.

[NeilUnreal]

I'm sure Glenn could add a lot more in this regard, but I believe the earthquake that generated the tsunami occurred on or near a plate boundary. IOW a place where periodic earthquakes would be expected.

-Neil

[Jack777]

"Pure silly ignorance" and other endearing ways of showing how smart you are compared to people, grnmorton. You are a shrewd one. There was that assertion made by people not nearly as smart as you grmorton. How would Lion know and why would he be expected to? You are insufferable.

[rogero]

"Pure silly ignorance" and other endearing ways of showing how smart you are compared to people, grnmorton. You are a shrewd one. There was that assertion made by people not nearly as smart as you grmorton. How would Lion know and why would he be expected to? You are insufferable. I guess facts presented by other folks don't mean much to you. Why should they? You've already made up your mind on Earth historical issues -- Earth is 1-1.5 Ma (and you "could care less" if it isn't), the biosphere has existed for over a billion years and there has been speciation after mass extinctions (by biological evolution is "wrong" and was Hitler's inspiration), NEOs have caused mass extinctions, academics aren't ready for civilization to pushed back to 12Ka. These are all, I'm sure, a product of life-long study, with which you now want to regale us all.

I can see why you'd get huffy with mean old Glennn. Proper protocol and pinky-in-the-air politeness are much more important in your book, right? Maybe it's because Lion is a Biblical inerranist like you, and Glennn is a bad old TE. Why don't you and Lion have it out on the age of Earth? You two are at complete loggerheads on that issue, and after all the Bible is God's Word and is absolutely true! C'mon, Jack -- why don't you have it out with Lion? Tell us all why you reject the clear-plain-simple-even-to-a-child reading of Genesis, as per AiG. ICR, and their ilk?

Hey, Jack -- do you realize that Glennn takes the Bible very seriously. I'd wager he takes the Bible as seriously as you do. He makes a noble attempt to ascribe historicity (not just allegory -- like I do) to Genesis 1-11. He also has two orders of magnitude more practical science experience than you, me, and Lion combined.

With Glennn's geology background in mind, why don't you argue with him over his scientific views of the Asian tsunami? Do you think over-pumping of gas wells was the cause? How about engaging in some science for once?

[Jack777]

If we are supposed to insult people, that is fine, no pinkies in the air for me. I notice that you do not like staying on the topic of a thread.

[rogero]

... I notice that you do not like staying on the topic of a thread.
Fair enough. So, maybe we need to start a new thread where self-professed Biblical Inerrantists widely disagree on the interpretation of Scripture as to the age and history of Earth and the occurrence of global deluge -- but consider that disagreement acceptable as long as "evilution" is excluded.

[Jack777]

I am thinking you do not mean what you say. I thought you said I post a lot of threads and I understood that you see this as a bad thing to do. You have not discussed any of my posts seriously on topic as far as I can tell. If you want to start one under the conditions you specify then great.

I do not think evolution is good or bad. It is either that it is or is not to me. One way or another is fine. I do not think that evolution is true. The fact that there are species of plants and animals is factual. The fact that sub-speciation occurs is just grand. It is on a level that amounts to the difference in races of people. Read the title to Darwin's book again.

In 1954, Barghoorn published micro-photographs of what he said was evidence of eucaryotic cells in the fossil record. They were not. It has not improved since.

Anyway, on another thread someone said that all of the evidence that is needed to show we evolved from a lower species is in. Transitional fossils and the like. Glory be. I stand corrected. I would have thought it would have gotten more publicity than it has, or maybe it is like saying protista, diatoms, and Barghoorn had the goods. I must take people at their word though. I am not up on this and a bit cynical to boot:smile: .

[rogero]

I am thinking you do not mean what you say.


I mean exactly what I say.


I thought you said I post a lot of threads and I understood that you see this as a bad thing to do. You have not discussed any of my posts seriously on topic as far as I can tell.


That is a bad thing if they are repetitive and obscure as to their point. And, I have discussed your posts, as far as can understand them, mainly by asking for clarifications on your POV on issues like your understanding of evolution, your conflation of putative derivative philosophies of evolution with the scientific theory, etc.




If you want to start one under the conditions you specify then great.


OK, I shall do this shortly.



I do not think evolution is good or bad. It is either that it is or is not to me. One way or another is fine. I do not think that evolution is true. The fact that there are species of plants and animals is factual. The fact that sub-speciation occurs is just grand. It is on a level that amounts to the difference in races of people. Read the title to Darwin's book again.


Again you're being unclear. What do you mean by "sub-speciation"? You stated in another post that rapid speciation has occurred after mass extinctions, and that the biosphere has been in continuous existence for Ga+. Your implication that no new species evolve means that modern (at least Pleistocene -- I say this because of your Holocene NEO catastrophism ideas) species were extant in the Pre-cambrian.

Anywho -- maybe you can clear this up in the new thread.



In 1954, Barghoorn published micro-photographs of what he said was evidence of eucaryotic cells in the fossil record. They were not. It has not improved since.

Anyway, on another thread someone said that all of the evidence that is needed to show we evolved from a lower species is in. Transitional fossils and the like. Glory be. I stand corrected. I would have thought it would have gotten more publicity than it has, or maybe it is like saying protista, diatoms, and Barghoorn had the goods. I must take people at their word though. I am not up on this and a bit cynical to boot:smile: .
Ok, great -- save this for the new thread.

Thanks!

R

[Jack777]

If you think my posts are repetitive, then that is what you think. They were not as I was posting each in reply to specific points brought up or answered specific questions. I will say that I am not responsible for your actions and your reactions, to my posts or for anything else.

What passes for changes in speciation is really sub speciation. Do you not know or is it that this term is no longer descriptive for people? It is a common idea and has application.

No.

There were a lot of species in the recent that were not extant in the Cambrian, Pre-Cambrian, and on up. I do not remember saying that and in fact would not have said that? What gave you the notion that I did?

[rogero]

If you think my posts are repetitive, then that is what you think. They were not as I was posting each in reply to specific points brought up or answered specific questions. I will say that I am not responsible for your actions and your reactions, to my posts or for anything else.

What passes for changes in speciation is really sub speciation. Do you not know or is it that this term is no longer descriptive for people? It is a common idea and has application.

No.

There were a lot of species in the recent that were not extant in the Cambrian, Pre-Cambrian, and on up. I do not remember saying that and in fact would not have said that? What gave you the notion that I did?
Why don't you discuss this in the new thread over in Natural Science 301?

For now, the bolded statement is inferred from your belief in a continuous Ga+ biosphere, but with your now amended statement (amended from that of a few weeks ago and reproduced on the new NS thread) that there was not speciation only "sub-speciation" (and term that I've never heard of BTW).

[Jack777]

I notice that grmorton has not apologized for his insufferable insult to Lion. I expect that will not happen.

[rogero]

I notice that grmorton has not apologized for his insufferable insult to Lion. I expect that will not happen.
Insufferable is a harsh word.

[Jack777]

I know. I was scandalized at the lack of respect shown to Lion. In fact, the outright contempt shown to people is well, insufferable.

[rogero]

I know. I was scandalized at the lack of respect shown to Lion. In fact, the outright contempt shown to people is well, insufferable. I don't see it that way. We'll see what Glennn has to say.

Anyway, why don't you try to set Lion straight on the age of the Earth and lack of evidence for a global deluge? You, being a Fundamentalist and a Biblical Inerrantist and all, probably have a lot of gravitas with Lion. And, since your less insufferable than Glennn, you would do it in a nice polite manner too.

We're all seeking truth after all. You think I'm wrong about "evolution" (although I still confused by your view on the science of evolution), and you think Lion is wrong about the age of Earth. Wrong is wrong, right? Errors beg to be corrected.

[Jack777]

Oh, I suppose I am plenty insufferable. I just pick my battles and probably meaner than grmorton for that matter. Lion deserves respect, so do you. Lion did nothing to deserve the treatment he got. Correcting is fine, no prob.

Did you know that we should not level a railing accusation against Satan and should be respectful to others?

[rogero]

Oh, I suppose I am plenty insufferable. I just pick my battles and probably meaner than grmorton for that matter. Lion deserves respect, so do you. Lion did nothing to deserve the treatment he got. Correcting is fine, no prob.

Did you know that we should not level a railing accusation against Satan and should be respectful to others?
I think you're being a bit of a drama queen, Jack. I don't see the "treatment" that Lion got to be as harsh as you seem to think. Could you point out exactly how Lion was treated that badly by Glennn?

What "railing accusation" are you referring to?

So, I guess you feel that "evolution" (whatever you mean by that) is a bigger problem than Old/Young Earth and Flood geology -- although both clearly require particular interpretations of scripture?

[Jack777]

Disrepect is disrespect. Lion is over 60 years old, that means he is an elder. That deserves a special level of respect. No drama intended.

Any railing accusation is fine not to level at Satan. No railing accusations. Bad idea.

[rogero]

Disrepect is disrespect. Lion is over 60 years old, that means he is an elder. That deserves a special level of respect. No drama intended.

Any railing accusation is fine not to level at Satan. No railing accusations. Bad idea.
Ah, I gotcha -- since he's an elderly gentleman he shouldn't be challenged on his misunderstandings of geology and physics. Even though, being a elder, his opinions on life-long study on these issue might command more respect among some of the impressionable younger readers who are honestly seeking answers. This may lead to the result that his scientifically untenable positions, left unchallenged, could improperly influence impressionable readers.

Fair enough, if that's your POV, fine with me -- we should go ahead and let elderly folks say whatever they want, unchallenged and uncorrected.

Oh, you're not going to like to hear this, but your bolded sentence makes no sense to me.

[Jack777]

No, the fact that people should not be treated as if it can be assumed they are idiots applies to youngsters like me too. It is especially egregious when someone who is as old and has so much wisdom stored up in him that he is sloughed off as if it is nothing.

It is okay if you do not understand.

Don't be unfair with Satan, and especially don't go off on him--how is that?

[rogero]

No, the fact that people should not be treated as if it can be assumed they are idiots applies to youngsters like me too.

But if a person, old or young, says an idiotic thing, shouldn't he/she be called on it?



It is especially egregious when someone who is as old and has so much wisdom stored up in him that he is sloughed off as if it is nothing.

I'm sure he has wisdom stored up about many things, but certainly not on geology and age of Earth. Glennn was a fire-breathing publishing YEC for many years, and he's seen all these goofy arguments before. Is he supposed to just them pass by?




It is okay if you do not understand.

I understand just fine, O wise one. :smile: I just don't agree with your vilification of Glennn and your characterization of his "treatment" of Lion.



Don't be unfair with Satan, and especially don't go off on him--how is that? Now that I don't understand! I admit that I find Jude 8-10 a bit cryptic, but I don't possess your sage wisdom. :wink:

[grmorton]

I notice that grmorton has not apologized for his insufferable insult to Lion. I expect that will not happen.

And I have noticed that Lion has not retracted his flat-out false assertions about oil and earthquakes which elicited me calling such nonsense "pure silly ignorance boiled down to its purest essence."

Getting facts right is more important in my view, Jack. When he retraces, I will praise him. Since he hasn't had the intellectual honesty to do that, I won't praise pure silly ignorance, nor apologize for calling it what it is.

People should also not tie falsehoods to God's name either.

[Lion]

To Glenn and the others who have risen to my defense, thanks.

I am not so thin skinned as all that. Let me make myself clear. There has been a lot of discussion in theological circles over the age of the earth. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the orb of the earth has existed far longer than created life on the orb. I base that on the fact that pillow lava which has cooled by the sea and therefore the excess argon could not escape, is an indicator of radioactive age.

The problem with age dating lava flows has been documented for years by numerous scientists not of YEC belief. It appears that there is too much argon in lava to be an accurate indicator of age. I do not want to pursue that argument further. Those who want to believe the argon escapes totally are entitled to their belief. I refuse to accept that, to me, unproven idea.

On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that tells me the Bible story is accurate, Glenn’s flying pigs simile to the contrary not withstanding. I think that characterization betrays a lack of an extensive vocabulary, or an opinionated unwillingness to discuss evidence. If he can discuss the evidence without resorting to such innuendoes, fine. Otherwise I bid Glenn adieu.

That aside, I have an opinion about the scriptures. I believe they are accurate, in spite of the notion that they are fables or fairy tales from ages past. I firmly believe that there was a global flood that stirred up the earth to its very foundations, down below where the deepest oil wells have gone.

[grmorton]

On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that tells me the Bible story is accurate, Glenn’s flying pigs simile to the contrary not withstanding. I think that characterization betrays a lack of an extensive vocabulary, or an opinionated unwillingness to discuss evidence. If he can discuss the evidence without resorting to such innuendoes, fine. Otherwise I bid Glenn adieu.

I have always found it odd how sensitive and delicate the anti-evolutionists feelings are. Unless one treats them with kid gloves, they will leave the sandbox and go home to mamma.

I would suggest that at your age you should have that thick skin you said you had, but fail to demonstrate.

Are you going to retract that nonsense about oil well starting the Sumatran earthquake or not?

[Lion]

Glen, What I considered an insult to my intelligence was your snide and supercilious remarks about flying pigs. When you discuss creation versus evolution, please keep it on a respectful tone. I don't try to insult your intelligence.

I was told by my son who claimed to have knowlege of oil ad gas wells in that area. I have no proof of any wells in that area, so I will have to take your denial as proof until proven otherwise. I know of the 90 east ridge in that area, so I did feel his report had some support. I know Java had lots of oil wells so did not know about the west side of Sumatra. Thanks for the correction.

One of my other correspondents asked me how I felt about the rise of the appalachians. I know from the theory that the midatlantic ridge spread and pushed the North American plate west. I have traveled all up and down both sides of that range from New York to Florida. I know from traveling up I81 that north of the Kenticky line the rocks seem to be tilted on a steep angle to the east. That is on the west side. On the east side, around Asheville, the rocks change from mostly limestone on the west side of the ridge to granite on the east. I don't know if it extends all the way, but Vermont is called the granite state. On the southern end of the range it seems to be mostly limestone. What is your impression?

[grmorton]

Glen, What I considered an insult to my intelligence was your snide and supercilious remarks about flying pigs. When you discuss creation versus evolution, please keep it on a respectful tone. I don't try to insult your intelligence.

Hey, if I am factually wrong, you have permission to tell me however you wish. I can take it and don't get too worked up about it.



I was told by my son who claimed to have knowlege of oil ad gas wells in that area. I have no proof of any wells in that area, so I will have to take your denial as proof until proven otherwise. I know of the 90 east ridge in that area, so I did feel his report had some support. I know Java had lots of oil wells so did not know about the west side of Sumatra. Thanks for the correction.

Thanks for correcting the record. This is something I can have respect for.

[lucaspa]

On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that tells me the Bible story is accurate,
Lion, this sentence highlights a problem with how science works. Science works by deductive logic. True statements have only true consequences and have false consequences.

For ANY theory, there is going to be evidence that is "for" it. There is even evidence "for" the theory that the earth is flat. So, can you decide on whether a theory is true by looking only at the evidence for it? No. After all, what are you going to do, make a stack of the evidence for competing theories and then decide which theory is correct based on how high the stack is?

Instead, you look for evidence that can't possibly be there IF the theory is really true. IOW, you look for false consequences. Evidence "for" only counts if it comes from a genuine attempt to show the theory to be false.

In the early 19th century, scientists really and honestly did look for the evidence that would show YEC (what you say "the Bible story is accurate"). These scientists were all Christians and many of them were ministers. What they found, instead, was evidence that showed YEC to be false. And they admitted that YEC was false. Christianity moved on.

What we have today is a group of people who won't admit the theory of YEC is wrong. Instead of testing their theory, they spend a small amount of their time looking ONLY for evidence for it (and surprise, of course they find it) and a large amount of time trying to convince people that all the evidence that does falsify YEC doesn't.

That aside, I have an opinion about the scriptures. I believe they are accurate, in spite of the notion that they are fables or fairy tales from ages past. I firmly believe that there was a global flood that stirred up the earth to its very foundations, down below where the deepest oil wells have gone.And it is the global flood in particular that those Christian scientists showed never happened. At all. There is NO world-wide geological feature or set of features that can be explained by a global flood. A global flood was falsified by 1831. I suggest Genesis and Geology[/] by CC Gillespie and [i]The Genesis Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young. They are both nice summaries of the data that was found in the period 1790-1831 that falsified a global flood.

[Lion]

Well, Lucaspa, you may have your opinion, and I have mine. I see plenty of evidence all around me that there was a worldwide flood. It all depends on which set of evidence you WANT TO BELIEVE.

If you want to believe evolution and discount the Bible story go right ahead. I have faith that the scripture story is true. Nobody has yet been able to convince me otherwise.

The problem we face is, what consitutes evidence? What do you propose as evidence? Convince me the Bible isn’t true. Bring on your evidence.

[grmorton]

Well, Lucaspa, you may have your opinion, and I have mine. I see plenty of evidence all around me that there was a worldwide flood. It all depends on which set of evidence you WANT TO BELIEVE.

Sorry Lion, there is NO evidence for a global flood. Please explain what termites were doing digging nests during the global flood into laminated sediments and then what was a termite eater doing, digging into said nest all at the same time that 2-4 feet per hour were being deposited on top of their head? Here is the picture. T is the termite nest A is the termite eater.

[attachment=1]

If you can't explain this, then you have no evidence for a global flood.

[Lion]

It all depends on the time it happened. What proof do you have that it wasn't AFTER THE FLOOD? It appears that termite nest was pretty close to the surface. Tell me more about where it was found

[grmorton]

It all depends on the time it happened. What proof do you have that it wasn't AFTER THE FLOOD? It appears that termite nest was pretty close to the surface. Tell me more about where it was found

Cant be after the flood because the fossils found in these Oligocene rocks contain NO fossils from living creatures. That means that since the animals we have alive today are the ones which got off the ark, these animals didn't get off the ark making them pre-flood animals.

If you follow these beds to the north they are covered by several thousand feet of additional sediments. But don't think these burrows are unusual. I can find burrows in all ages of sedimentary rock. Surely you arent' going to claim that all the 60,000 feet of sediment in places like the Anadarko basin of Oklahoma is post flood are you?

Burrows are found at all levels of the geologic column. So, now it is your turn to explain things. Please explain.

edited to add, I know of lungfish burrows found in Permian strata in which lungfish were found to be esthevating [sic?] similar to hibernating. Anyway these sediments are firmly in the middle of the geologic column.

[Lion]

I’m sorry, Glenn, but I have an entirely different view of the so called “geologic column.” The so-called “geologic column” only exists here and there in a piecemeal fashion. At most places on the continents. Far less than half of the so-called “column” exists, and only in a few places does it exist at all. Many of these places have gaps in the fossil strata. In the grand canyon, that great gash in the earth there are 150 million years of the so called record missing.

I understand about the so called geological column. It was invented in europe to classify the fossils they found there. It was obviously a classification system to explain the simple to more complex life forms of sea creatures. It was nothing more than that, but other scientists enlarged on it and expanded on it to include other higher forms.

The simple explanation for the jumble of bones in several locations like the one in Colorado is that there were a lot of large carcasses left floating around and the wind blew them into a cove in the hills as the water was decreasing and sand covered them. As time and erosion took place they were uncovered.

However, I am puzzled about something. You state that the flood of Noah as recorded in Gen 6 to 8., was just a local affair How, then, are so many fossils found in such widely diverse locations as the Gobi desert, in patagonia, In Colorado, In Wyoming, in the badlands of South Dakota In Oregon, in Washington, Alaska and numerous other places? I have seen huge mammoth tusks in Alaska and the Russians reported that there must have been at least five mllion mammoth skeletons scattered along a six hundred mile stretch of the arctic ocean. There was no evidence that man had anything to do with it.

I can’t answer the question about the termites directly. I don’t have enough information. Can you? There are bigger questions than that. I still want to know what happened to the thousand of frozen animals that Hibben found along the Tanana river in Alaska. As near as I can figure there must have been a huge tsunami that washed ashore, clear up above Dawson in the Yukon Territory. Discover Magazine had an article about a huge mound of earth that miners have been tearing apart by hydraulic mining that has millions of bison bones that have fresh appearing marrow in them.

[grmorton]

I’m sorry, Glenn, but I have an entirely different view of the so called “geologic column.” The so-called “geologic column” only exists here and there in a piecemeal fashion. At most places on the continents. Far less than half of the so-called “column” exists, and only in a few places does it exist at all. Many of these places have gaps in the fossil strata. In the grand canyon, that great gash in the earth there are 150 million years of the so called record missing.

You can have your 'view' of the geologic column but it isn't worth anything. there are lots of places in the world where the entire geologic column exists, in its entirety, in proper order all piled up in one spot. I document these occurrences in my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

The entire column is found in North Dakota and there are aroudn 80 wells which have drilled through the entire column there. There are 31 other basins around the world where the same thing can be said. You can believe what you want. You can believe that pigs can fly, but you the fact remains that pigs don't fly and the entire geologic column is not as you describe it.

I understand about the so called geological column. It was invented in europe to classify the fossils they found there. It was obviously a classification system to explain the simple to more complex life forms of sea creatures. It was nothing more than that, but other scientists enlarged on it and expanded on it to include other higher forms.

No, the geologic column was described (not invented) by a guy, william Smith, who made his living telling British Lords if they had coal on their land or not. He used the fossils to predict where the coal was. So, you understand entirely falsely.

The simple explanation for the jumble of bones in several locations like the one in Colorado is that there were a lot of large carcasses left floating around and the wind blew them into a cove in the hills as the water was decreasing and sand covered them. As time and erosion took place they were uncovered.

Ridiculous and shows an incredible naivety about geology.

However, I am puzzled about something. You state that the flood of Noah as recorded in Gen 6 to 8., was just a local affair How, then, are so many fossils found in such widely diverse locations as the Gobi desert, in patagonia, In Colorado, In Wyoming, in the badlands of South Dakota In Oregon, in Washington, Alaska and numerous other places? I have seen huge mammoth tusks in Alaska and the Russians reported that there must have been at least five mllion mammoth skeletons scattered along a six hundred mile stretch of the arctic ocean. There was no evidence that man had anything to do with it.

What on earth does man having to do something with fossils have to do with whether the flood was local or not? Are you trying to say that if there was a local flood, mankind hid the fossils around the earth? The fossils are found because they are the result of eons during which animals lived died and a few from each generation were fossilized.

I can’t answer the question about the termites directly. I don’t have enough information.

Yes you do have enough information. You know what termites do, you know an approximate length of time it takes to dig a nest and you know that thick geologic deposits deposited in one year require extremely fast rates of deposition which is incompatible with termites digging nests. That is all you need to know, but you don't want to know any of it so you claim not to have enough information. This is not the case is it?

Can you?

I did

There are bigger questions than that. I still want to know what happened to the thousand of frozen animals that Hibben found along the Tanana river in Alaska. As near as I can figure there must have been a huge tsunami that washed ashore, clear up above Dawson in the Yukon Territory. Discover Magazine had an article about a huge mound of earth that miners have been tearing apart by hydraulic mining that has millions of bison bones that have fresh appearing marrow in them.

These aren't bigger questions, they are evasive, change-the-subject questions.

[Lion]

Glenn, I’m not a geologist, as you have already determined. I don’t know anything about the names of the layers, and could not care less what they are called. I am convinced that they were all laid down in a worldwide flood and all the data in the world points in that direction. You maintain that the flood was local mesopotamian affair.

All right, have it your way, for the sake of argument. Then where did the enormous world wide amounts of coal come from? Where did the five million skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along six hundred miles of the arctic coast come from? How did all those fossils you found so deep in North Dakota wells get buried? That’s just for starters. What kind of process buried them? Was new earth or rock being made at the same time?

You talk about a geologic column being from simple forms and progressing to complex. I don’t understand something. How come only complex forms exist at certain levels, and not simple forms? Weren’t they around, too, as part of the ecosystem?

[grmorton]

Glenn, I’m not a geologist, as you have already determined. I don’t know anything about the names of the layers, and could not care less what they are called. I am convinced that they were all laid down in a worldwide flood and all the data in the world points in that direction.

So, not knowing the data, never having looked at it, you are convinced you know what caused the geologic column. This is the biggest problem those of us who fight for a rational christianity face. This concept that one doesn't have to actually study a subject to know what it says is arrogant in the highest degree.

You maintain that the flood was local mesopotamian affair.

False, but then, since you don't seem to care about evidence or even studying something to know that you are correct, why should I tell you what I believe? I don't believe what you suggest, though. If you did a bit of actual study (hard work I admit) you might find out what I believe. But, somehow I doubt you will go to the trouble. You are getting your facts wrong.

All right, have it your way, for the sake of argument. Then where did the enormous world wide amounts of coal come from?

There is so much coal that it could not represent the plant matter from a single biosphere. There are 15 x 10^18 g of carbon in the world's coal beds. There is only .3 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the earth's entire biosphere today. That means that Coal represents 45 times more organic material than currently exists on earth. (before you say that the earth was more lush, you better think about the quanities of oil and demostrably organic limestone which also contains carbon from living things). The coal could not represent the demise of a single biosphere. It had to have come from many biospheres and slowly collected over time. That means, the coal comes from peat bogs generated over millions of years rather than from a 1 year flood.

Where did the five million skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along six hundred miles of the arctic coast come from?

I read once (I think in Darwin) that there were 10 million elephants alive before the modern times. Assume a similar mammoth population spread across the arctic and assume that in the deeply frozen site 5% of the deaths are fossilized. Assume a 70 year life span for the critter and you can have 5 million mammoth carcasses in about 1400 years. This is really no big problem, except that you are desperate for having a global flood and don't do math like this. And that is another problem for YEC. You guys don't do any math.


How did all those fossils you found so deep in North Dakota wells get buried? That’s just for starters. What kind of process buried them? Was new earth or rock being made at the same time?

They got buried one sand grain at a time. What kind of question is this? As the Rocky mountains erode today, some of that material is washed down the rives and some of it is deposited on North Dakota today. It buries things. That is what sedimentation does. It buries things.

You talk about a geologic column being from simple forms and progressing to complex.

I said no such thing. Either document it or retract this statement. This is another example of you getting your facts wrong,

I don’t understand something. How come only complex forms exist at certain levels, and not simple forms? Weren’t they around, too, as part of the ecosystem?

the 'simpler' animals are found throughout the geologic column. Your ignorance of geology is why you ask such questions. But then, you don't seem to think one needs to actually study geology before one can know what is out there. What an amazing attitude!

edited to add, I am not going to let you off the hook. Please tell us exactly what piece of data you lack to be able to draw a conclusion about the termite pictures above. I notice that you have avoided that question after saying you didn't have enough info. I don't beleive that you do lack such information. If you do, please tell me what it is and I will provide the information for you (you really should go do your own research but I will do it for you in this case).

[Lion]

Quote: Originally posted by Lion

Glenn, I’m not a geologist, as you have already determined. I don’t know anything about the names of the layers, and could not care less what they are called. I am convinced that they were all laid down in a worldwide flood and all the data in the world points in that direction.



So, not knowing the data, never having looked at it, you are convinced you know what caused the geologic column. This is the biggest problem those of us who fight for a rational christianity face. This concept that one doesn't have to actually study a subject to know what it says is arrogant in the highest degree.
---------------
Lion
No, that is not true. I have looked at some of the data. Not all of it, but some of it. Further, I believe the Bible story is a fact, not needing any interpretation. The world was terribly wicked and God decided to wipe it out, every breathing creature. But He found Noah and decided to give the world one more try.
-------------
Glenn
Quote:

You maintain that the flood was local mesopotamian affair.

False, but then, since you don't seem to care about evidence or even studying something to know that you are correct, why should I tell you what I believe? I don't believe what you suggest, though. If you did a bit of actual study (hard work I admit) you might find out what I believe. But, somehow I doubt you will go to the trouble. You are getting your facts wrong.
--------------
Lion
So the flood was not a local mesopotanian affair. How widespread was it? I believe the Bible, that it is the word of God. It is the truth.
------------------
Quote:

All right, have it your way, for the sake of argument. Then where did the enormous world wide amounts of coal come from?



There is so much coal that it could not represent the plant matter from a single biosphere. There are 15 x 10^18 g of carbon in the world's coal beds. There is only .3 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the earth's entire biosphere today. That means that Coal represents 45 times more organic material than currently exists on earth. (before you say that the earth was more lush, you better think about the quanities of oil and demostrably organic limestone which also contains carbon from living things). The coal could not represent the demise of a single biosphere. It had to have come from many biospheres and slowly collected over time. That means, the coal comes from peat bogs generated over millions of years rather than from a 1 year flood.
------------------
Lion
What you are saying is that there was 50 times the carbon in the biosphere in the earth before the flood than exists in the total animal and vegetable world today. I agree, surprisingly enough. The coal and oil already consumed plus the amount remaining is an enormous amount. The problem we face is to reconcile the present area of the earth with the area prior to the flood. I have no idea of the area lost in the flood and the amount squeezed up in mountain ranges and the land presently in deserts that have little or no vegetation today. Further, the earth before the flood apparently had no frgid polar regions like today, so the vegetation could have been several times what it is today.
-----------------
Quote:

Where did the five million skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along six hundred miles of the arctic coast come from?

I read once (I think in Darwin) that there were 10 million elephants alive before the modern times. Assume a similar mammoth population spread across the arctic and assume that in the deeply frozen site 5% of the deaths are fossilized. Assume a 70 year life span for the critter and you can have 5 million mammoth carcasses in about 1400 years. This is really no big problem, except that you are desperate for having a global flood and don't do math like this. And that is another problem for YEC. You guys don't do any math.
------------------
Lion
Talk about being amazed!!!! You forgot that the mammoth is a variety of elephant and cannot survive in cold weather. Hannibal tried to cross the alps wiith a number of elephants and lost all but one of them from the cold. The elephant kind requires enormous amounts of water wich must be sucked up through its trunk and cold water causes an enormous heat loss to the animal. Sorry, that scenario won’t do.
--------------
Quote:

How did all those fossils you found so deep in North Dakota wells get buried? That’s just for starters. What kind of process buried them? Was new earth or rock being made at the same time?



They got buried one sand grain at a time. What kind of question is this? As the Rocky mountains erode today, some of that material is washed down the rives and some of it is deposited on North Dakota today. It buries things. That is what sedimentation does. It buries things.
------------
Lion
Yes, sedimentation. It does a lot of things. If the grains of sand washed down the Missouri and settled in North Dakota to a depth of 2.746 miles. That’s a lot of dirt. The Missouri river was a muddy stream, so muddy it had the reputation of being “Too thick to navigate and too thin to cultivate.”

Now it’s time to do some math. Let’s assume the entire state of North Dakota was silted up that way. But Noth Dakota wasn’t a lake, so there had to be some place for the water to run to. We have to add the area of South Dakota and Nebraska to have a place for the water to go. We won’t bother with the states along the Mississippi.

The area of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska total 223,568 sq miles. This has to be filled to a depth of 2.746 miles, or 613,965 cubic miles. Now where does the amount of earth have to come from? From Montana and Yellowstone park. This has an area of 147,156 miles, not all of which is in the watershed of the Mississippi. But for the sake of argument it was, the 613,965 cubic miles had to come from that area. Is it reasonable to erode 4.17 miles of earth from thatarea? This is a bit preposterous.
------------
Quote:

You talk about a geologic column being from simple forms and progressing to complex.

I said no such thing. Either document it or retract this statement. This is another example of you getting your facts wrong,
----------------
Lion
Perhaps you didn’t say it in so many words but I get the strong impression from other writings and from the life forms in the cores from the well under discussion.
Quote:

I don’t understand something. How come only complex forms exist at certain levels, and not simple forms? Weren’t they around, too, as part of the ecosystem?



the 'simpler' animals are found throughout the geologic column. Your ignorance of geology is why you ask such questions. But then, you don't seem to think one needs to actually study geology before one can know what is out there. What an amazing attitude!
---------------
Lion
I’ve been searching the internet for references to the geological columnI found this by www.earthvisions.net

The face of places, and their forms decay;
And that is solid earth, that once was sea;
Seas, in their turn, retreating from the shore,
Make solid land, what ocean was before.

Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV

The geological column was largely developed during the early 19th century before Darwinian evolutionary theories were used to interpret the fossils and long before radiometric techniques were developed to measure the ages of rocks. Different geological eras and periods were distinguished primarily on the basis of fossils and secondarily upon lithological and mineralogical characteristics.
------------------
Glenn
edited to add, I am not going to let you off the hook. Please tell us exactly what piece of data you lack to be able to draw a conclusion about the termite pictures above. I notice that you have avoided that question after saying you didn't have enough info. I don't beleive that you do lack such information. If you do, please tell me what it is and I will provide the information for you (you really should go do your own research but I will do it for you in this case).
-------------------
Lion
I really don’t know what Information I lack. All I see is thumbnail size picture with such small detail that I can’t identify the eater and it appears that it is on top of the ground. I have no idea whether it is recent or whatever. Without seeing the actual site, i’m at a loss to comment.

[grmorton]

Lion
No, that is not true. I have looked at some of the data. Not all of it, but some of it. Further, I believe the Bible story is a fact, not needing any interpretation. The world was terribly wicked and God decided to wipe it out, every breathing creature. But He found Noah and decided to give the world one more try.

It always requires interpretation. The Hebrew word Eretz is most often translated as 'country' or 'land.' It is NOT translated very often as 'planet earth'. But you think it says planet earth and it isn't an intepretation. Of course it is an interpretation and in it lies the interpretation of a global or local flood.
-------------
Glenn
Quote:

You maintain that the flood was local mesopotamian affair.

False, but then, since you don't seem to care about evidence or even studying something to know that you are correct, why should I tell you what I believe? I don't believe what you suggest, though. If you did a bit of actual study (hard work I admit) you might find out what I believe. But, somehow I doubt you will go to the trouble. You are getting your facts wrong.
--------------
Lion
So the flood was not a local mesopotanian affair. How widespread was it? I believe the Bible, that it is the word of God. It is the truth.

Lion, I am not going to do your work for you. Do a web search on my name and the flood. it will produce a couple of web pages outlining what I believe. If you are too lazy to do such a simple task, I certainly am not going to do it for you. Why don't you do some work for a change?


------------------
Quote:

All right, have it your way, for the sake of argument. Then where did the enormous world wide amounts of coal come from?



There is so much coal that it could not represent the plant matter from a single biosphere. There are 15 x 10^18 g of carbon in the world's coal beds. There is only .3 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the earth's entire biosphere today. That means that Coal represents 45 times more organic material than currently exists on earth. (before you say that the earth was more lush, you better think about the quanities of oil and demostrably organic limestone which also contains carbon from living things). The coal could not represent the demise of a single biosphere. It had to have come from many biospheres and slowly collected over time. That means, the coal comes from peat bogs generated over millions of years rather than from a 1 year flood.
------------------
Lion
What you are saying is that there was 50 times the carbon in the biosphere in the earth before the flood than exists in the total animal and vegetable world today. I agree, surprisingly enough.

I am NOT , repeat NOT saying that. I only cited the carbon in the coal, my friend. You need to cease assuming things when you won't go looking things up.

The coal and oil already consumed plus the amount remaining is an enormous amount. The problem we face is to reconcile the present area of the earth with the area prior to the flood. I have no idea of the area lost in the flood and the amount squeezed up in mountain ranges and the land presently in deserts that have little or no vegetation today. Further, the earth before the flood apparently had no frgid polar regions like today, so the vegetation could have been several times what it is today.

Bull roar. Trees found in the fossil record have rings. That means that there were seasons. Glacial deposits are also found in the geologic column. That means there were ice ages.

As to the oil, there is 540 x 10^18 grams of carbon in the petroleum and asphalt of the world. That means there were 1800 biospheres which died to create that petroleum. You simply don't know enough to be drawing the conclusions you draw.


-----------------
Quote:

Where did the five million skeletons of wooly mammoths scattered along six hundred miles of the arctic coast come from?

I read once (I think in Darwin) that there were 10 million elephants alive before the modern times. Assume a similar mammoth population spread across the arctic and assume that in the deeply frozen site 5% of the deaths are fossilized. Assume a 70 year life span for the critter and you can have 5 million mammoth carcasses in about 1400 years. This is really no big problem, except that you are desperate for having a global flood and don't do math like this. And that is another problem for YEC. You guys don't do any math.
------------------
Lion
Talk about being amazed!!!! You forgot that the mammoth is a variety of elephant and cannot survive in cold weather. Hannibal tried to cross the alps wiith a number of elephants and lost all but one of them from the cold. The elephant kind requires enormous amounts of water wich must be sucked up through its trunk and cold water causes an enormous heat loss to the animal. Sorry, that scenario won’t do.

You are so lacking in knowledge of paleontology that it is incredible. Mammoths had FUR, FUR!!! FURRRRRRRRR! I have some mammoth fur in my personal fossil collection. These are not naked elephants. So you simply don't know what you are talking about, but you continue to try to argue with those who have actually looked at the evidence.


--------------
Quote:

How did all those fossils you found so deep in North Dakota wells get buried? That’s just for starters. What kind of process buried them? Was new earth or rock being made at the same time?



They got buried one sand grain at a time. What kind of question is this? As the Rocky mountains erode today, some of that material is washed down the rives and some of it is deposited on North Dakota today. It buries things. That is what sedimentation does. It buries things.
------------
Lion
Yes, sedimentation. It does a lot of things. If the grains of sand washed down the Missouri and settled in North Dakota to a depth of 2.746 miles. That’s a lot of dirt. The Missouri river was a muddy stream, so muddy it had the reputation of being “Too thick to navigate and too thin to cultivate.”

Now it’s time to do some math. Let’s assume the entire state of North Dakota was silted up that way. But Noth Dakota wasn’t a lake, so there had to be some place for the water to run to. We have to add the area of South Dakota and Nebraska to have a place for the water to go. We won’t bother with the states along the Mississippi.

The area of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska total 223,568 sq miles. This has to be filled to a depth of 2.746 miles, or 613,965 cubic miles. Now where does the amount of earth have to come from? From Montana and Yellowstone park. This has an area of 147,156 miles, not all of which is in the watershed of the Mississippi. But for the sake of argument it was, the 613,965 cubic miles had to come from that area. Is it reasonable to erode 4.17 miles of earth from thatarea? This is a bit preposterous.

First off, the sediment column in South Dakota and Nebraska is NOT 2.7 miles, so your math is crap. Secondly, lets use your crappy number and calculate the depositional rate over the 570 million years geology says it took to deposit all that sediment. That is only 25 feet per million years. That isn't much of a sedimentation rate. The sediment didn't all come from the Rockies because the Rockies were not uplifted until some time in the Tertiary. Much of the sediment came off of the Canadian Shield, which has been eroded down to basement. So, you need to learn much more before you try to do math with geology.

------------
Quote:

You talk about a geologic column being from simple forms and progressing to complex.

I said no such thing. Either document it or retract this statement. This is another example of you getting your facts wrong,
----------------
Lion
Perhaps you didn’t say it in so many words but I get the strong impression from other writings and from the life forms in the cores from the well under discussion.

Please retract the false statement you made. I have neither implied nor said what you said I did. Are you honest enough to actually admit you are wrong?




I don’t understand something. How come only complex forms exist at certain levels, and not simple forms? Weren’t they around, too, as part of the ecosystem?



the 'simpler' animals are found throughout the geologic column. Your ignorance of geology is why you ask such questions. But then, you don't seem to think one needs to actually study geology before one can know what is out there. What an amazing attitude!
---------------
Lion
I’ve been searching the internet for references to the geological columnI found this by www.earthvisions.net

The face of places, and their forms decay;
And that is solid earth, that once was sea;
Seas, in their turn, retreating from the shore,
Make solid land, what ocean was before.

Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV

That is a meaningless response to my statement above.

The geological column was largely developed during the early 19th century before Darwinian evolutionary theories were used to interpret the fossils and long before radiometric techniques were developed to measure the ages of rocks. Different geological eras and periods were distinguished primarily on the basis of fossils and secondarily upon lithological and mineralogical characteristics.
------------------
Glenn
edited to add, I am not going to let you off the hook. Please tell us exactly what piece of data you lack to be able to draw a conclusion about the termite pictures above. I notice that you have avoided that question after saying you didn't have enough info. I don't beleive that you do lack such information. If you do, please tell me what it is and I will provide the information for you (you really should go do your own research but I will do it for you in this case).
-------------------
Lion
I really don’t know what Information I lack. All I see is thumbnail size picture with such small detail that I can’t identify the eater and it appears that it is on top of the ground. I have no idea whether it is recent or whatever. Without seeing the actual site, i’m at a loss to comment.

double click on the picture and it will come up enlarged.

[Lion]

Glenn, you claim to be a theistic evolutionist, but your and my terms for theistic are worlds apart. I have looked at one of your web pages and find your calculations for the exothermiic heat given off by lime, while accurate, doesn't match the story of the source of the flood water.

I am very familiar wth the exothermic reaction of unslaked lime in your description of the Winnepeg limestone formation. However, I have somewhat of an argument with your premise that the limestone was from an unslacked source. Gen 7:11 says the fountains of the great deep were broken up and this was the source of the flood waters. This says your calculations are worthless. The solar constant does not enter into the picture.

The extensive limestone and dolomite formations plus the ubiquitous limestone present all over the United States indicates that the limestone was not formed in this manner. We don’t rule out exothermic reactions, but they were not present at the time of the flood.

I am mildly curious over the term scolithus burrows. I have seen lots of tunnels made by some kind of marine creature. They are all over my yard. What is this scolithus? I call these tunnels crinoid. Are they the same, just a latin name intended to confuse people? I couldn’t find it in my unabridged dictionary. Neither could I find pantodont or artiodactyl.

I don't intend to get into an argument over termites. Neither do I want to discuss millions of years. They are not compatible with the scriptures. You will not hear from me again.

[grmorton]

Glenn, you claim to be a theistic evolutionist, but your and my terms for theistic are worlds apart. I have looked at one of your web pages and find your calculations for the exothermiic heat given off by lime, while accurate, doesn't match the story of the source of the flood water.

Have you ever considered the extremely remote possibility that your view of the story of the source of the flood waters might, just possibly (I know it is inconceivable) be wrong?

I am very familiar wth the exothermic reaction of unslaked lime in your description of the Winnepeg limestone formation. However, I have somewhat of an argument with your premise that the limestone was from an unslacked source. Gen 7:11 says the fountains of the great deep were broken up and this was the source of the flood waters. This says your calculations are worthless. The solar constant does not enter into the picture.

So where was the limestone prior to the flood. by the way, you need to explain why much of the limestone is composed of dead animal parts. Double click on the following pictures of limestone

[attachment=1]

[attachment=2]

[attachment=3]

The extensive limestone and dolomite formations plus the ubiquitous limestone present all over the United States indicates that the limestone was not formed in this manner. We don’t rule out exothermic reactions, but they were not present at the time of the flood.

And I would ask what exactly do you know about limestones given that you have never studied geology? How do you know what you think is true? How can you be so confident when you haven't actually looked at the data?

I am mildly curious over the term scolithus burrows. I have seen lots of tunnels made by some kind of marine creature. They are all over my yard. What is this scolithus?



scolithus refers to a particular type of burrow made by a paleozoic animal
"Of much interest, therefore, is the recent discovery of a worm-
like fossil in a burrow of Early Cambrian Scolithos
linearis(Haldemann 1840); this has a segmented appearance with large
bumps arming each body segment, not dissimilar to the humps of
Xenusion (Tropenz 1986)."


I call these tunnels crinoid. Are they the same, just a latin name intended to confuse people? I couldn’t find it in my unabridged dictionary. Neither could I find pantodont or artiodactyl.

I don't care what you call the tunnels, but tunnels are not crinoids. Here is a crinoid. double click on the little picture

[attachment=4]

I don't intend to get into an argument over termites. Neither do I want to discuss millions of years. They are not compatible with the scriptures. You will not hear from me again.

Yeah, like most YECs, y'all run from the data. Y'all don't want to discuss the data, but then you hypocritically claim that you all are being scientific. You aren't you know. Y'all are decidedly bad for Christianity. I hope that hole into which you have thrust your head is not warm as well as dark.