Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
--I think that the problem is that there is so much data out there that could potentially alter those stratigraphic locations for the onset and end of the flood. All of this data must be brought together to form one coherent theory, but where are the laborers? Are we are to expect ICR to just go to the grand canyon, take a couple samples and come back with these conclusions? Of course not. A lack of laborers is not my argument, however. While it may take time, the data is out there and can be evaluated.
JM: But you've had 200+ years! How much more time do you need? Remember, it was Noachian flood geologists who largely developed the geologic column. As they did so, they realized that a global flood did not fit the evidence they compiled. The other problem is that the flood is the defining event in all of geologic history according to ye-creationism, but not a one of you can define when it happened. Seems strange to me given the fact that creationists of the 17th and 18th century concluded no global flood occurred.
--The fact of the matter is, those evaporites, glacial deposits, paleosols and other geologic remnants can potentially be used in these analyses.
JM: You BET they can and have been used by catastrophists to disprove the global flood some 150+ years ago. The intervening years have only strengthened the evidence against the flood.
What we can do, and have done, is taken some basic data such as is done in the Freode article and make some preliminary suggestions. As explained in the article, the preliminary data suggests that the Pre-flood/flood boundary is probably in the vicinity of the Cenozoic/Mesozoic or Paleozoic/Mesozoic.
JM: That 'article' was a series of words that concluded nothing. Neither time frame works and that's precisely why they did not define it more rigidly. The fact is that during the Paleozoic-Cenozoic we have clear evidence that there was no globally inundating flood. We have paleosols, evaporites, river meanders, trackways, termite nests, bees nests, bones burrowed by beetles none of which can be reconciled with a global flood. So, the question remains, when did the flood happen? Where are the globally correlatable strata?
All we can do is build on this. I don't think it is very well appreciated that the advancement in our understanding of this issue will require modification as the new data comes under analysis.
JM: Actually, it is very much appreciated that all the data collected in the past 200 years falsifies the global flood and none supports it. One can take a small local event or observation and twist it into a catastrophic framework, but it always falls apart in regional correlation. You simply cannot treat a global flood in isolation and this is a major failure of young earth creationism. This is not a minor fault, it is a severe and major shortcoming of the entire story advocated by young earthers. You cannot tiptoe around this issue although that's precisely what ye-earthers do by trying to deflect attention by proposing models of CPT and other meaningless models without the ground truth to back up the models.
For example, I'm sure that if it was initially argued that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary were Cenozoic/Mesozoic and then it was subsequently shown to be implausible from some set of data, the suggestion that 'well maybe a global flood didn't happen at all' would pop up all over the place. Instead of falsification, this merely may indicate that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary is somewhere else. This line of reasoning also can apply to other geologic arguments against the floods occurence.
JM: It's been shown that it cannot be fit anywhere by the same people who originally thought it to be so. I suspect that this is the reason that ye-creationism mostly dances around the specifics because it kills them everytime. The Cenozoic/Mesozoic does not work because of the evidence for paleosols, evaporites, continental sandstones, river meanders, fossil burrows and trackways etc etc etc.
--I hope I explained this ok.
JM: You explained what you think just fine. The problem is that you supplied no data telling me when the flood happened. Don't feel bad, you're not alone in this.
--Well I'm glad you've taken time to read the actual geological literature. I especially liked Fritz and Yuretich's papers in the early 80's on the subject.
...and have debated it before and I followed your desparate handwaving attempts to counter this falsification on the EvCforum where you got completely trounced by Edge and Bill Birkland so I may be more familiar with these arguments than you think though I only lurked in that discussion.
--lol, IMHO edge had little to contribute to that thread, I was explaining things what seemed to be hundreds of times. It was not until Bill popped in and supplied us with some information from Lorin Amidon's dissertation regarding the gallatin paleosols that I started to back down. I predict that with the Amidon field research it will be similar to what happened with the Fritz and Yuretich research. Until I got a hold of Fritz and Yuretich's previous publications it was difficult to make conclusions regarding the data (especially with little more than internet links like you cited in your last posts). But when I read the literature, I was able to make some pretty good relevant observations.
BTW Bill has posted yet another falsification of CPT on EvC some time ago based on sea floor sediments.
--So... by how many magnitudes have you over estimated it as a 'falsification'? Tell you what, I'll personally direct you to my response when I give it, or would you like to contribute your thoughts since you have been able to take the information he supplied and conclusively falsify CPT?
I am sure everyone over there is eagerly awaiting your reply. You seem to have deserted your thread there.
--I've had much longer absences. I don't want to be an "armchair scientist" all my life. I get more out of the real literature, at least qualitatively.
Nice dodge.
--Despite the very fact that I gave you a pretty good potential falsification..
However, the simulation is Baumgardner's and you seem to have bought into it.
--Yeah, his simulations of runaway. Not his postulate of gigantic hydro-hurricanes.
Now you suddenly don't want to believe him.
--What are you talking about? Did you read what I said? I said that I, " think it is possible that it could work for various extensive strata, but I havent looked into it, have you?"
If he is so wrong about this then why believe his CPT models at all?
--Sigh.. A impecable example of what I explained in my last post to J. Meert:
I don't think it is very well appreciated that the advancement in our understanding of this issue will require modification as the new data comes under analysis. For example, I'm sure that if it was initially argued that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary were Cenozoic/Mesozoic and then it was subsequently shown to be implausible from some set of data, the suggestion that 'well maybe a global flood didn't happen at all' would pop up all over the place. Instead of falsification, this merely may indicate that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary is somewhere else.
Think it through. There are dinosaur tracks nests and eggs in strata that overly thousands of feet of strata that were supposedly flood deposits. According to CPT those layers were deposited by massive cyclonic currents sweeping over the continent. How was anything alive to make tracks?
--Maybe the superposing deposit wasn't deposited by a cyclonic current? Also,I explained this by saying, "The existance of fossil tracks, nests, eggs, mud cracks, fluvial currents etc. depend on the depositional environment."
How was anything alive to make tracks late in the flood in any flood model?
--I dunno, go ask the biogeography guys. All I care about is preserving the remnants in the GC.
[quote]
Take for instance the dinosaur tracks in the Navajo Sandstones which are above all those other sediments of the Colorado Plateau. Of course some creationists consider those tracks to be post flood and some even consider the animal tracks in the Permian Coconino Sandstones to be post flood.
[quote]
--What?? I hope your refering to Hovind or someone with no credibility whatsoever.. The Kaibab formation sediments at the rim of the grand canyon were deposited before Pangea even broke up.
I think this illustrates the point of the thread nicely. YECs try to move the flood boundary around at their convenience to overcome falsifications. You shouldn't have to do this.
--I see that you really don't appreciate the fact that the advancement of science requires modification as more and more data is taken into account. It isn't moving flood boundaries around at our convenience, its moving them in light of the data.
Consider what a massive event you are talking about with the huge energy releases involved in CPT. This is supposed to be a totally unique event global in scope. So why can't you even tell us where it stops and starts in the geologic record?
--See my last post.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 13th October 2003 at 10:14 PM.
JM: But you've had 200+ years! How much more time do you need?
--200 years ago we didn't have knowledge of the convection and plastic deformation that takes place in the mantle, or the required mineral physics in order to hypothesize runaway subduction. Seems to me that all of the things being discovered quite recently, and the increased availability of comprehensive and detailed data is what is and is going to setting the stage for any possible explaination of the earths geology on a short time scale.
--Why havent we figured out exactly how geomagnetic reversals occur? because either (1) we don't have the appropriate data, or (2) we don't have an appropriate model of the geodynamo. Or even both. I think a similar situation is with CPT. Not until recently has a plausible basic model been formulated, and recent data is becoming sufficient to add onto the theory one piece at a time.
[quote]
Remember, it was Noachian flood geologists who largely developed the geologic column.
[quote]
--Yup, and the big reason why they favoured uniformitarian geology is because, when you got millions of years, just extrapolate backwords! They certainly didn't have the resources available in order to simulate catastrophic overturning of the mantle or anything of that nature. This is the main reason why I lend the 'disproven 150/200 years ago' argument no credibility.
As they did so, they realized that a global flood did not fit the evidence they compiled. The other problem is that the flood is the defining event in all of geologic history according to ye-creationism, but not a one of you can define when it happened. Seems strange to me given the fact that creationists of the 17th and 18th century concluded no global flood occurred.
--Doesn't seem all that strange to me.
JM: You BET they can and have been used by catastrophists to disprove the global flood some 150+ years ago. The intervening years have only strengthened the evidence against the flood.
--What did we know about paleosols and evaporites 150+ years ago? Paleopedology was not very well understood at all until very recent times.
JM: That 'article' was a series of words that concluded nothing. Neither time frame works and that's precisely why they did not define it more rigidly.
--Are you sure that it is not because neither time can be substantiated with the already analyzed data?
The fact is that during the Paleozoic-Cenozoic we have clear evidence that there was no globally inundating flood. We have paleosols, evaporites, river meanders, trackways, termite nests, bees nests, bones burrowed by beetles none of which can be reconciled with a global flood.
--then how are the beetles going to occupy themselves for a year?
So, the question remains, when did the flood happen? Where are the globally correlatable strata?
--Yes the question does remain, for reasons given. All we can do now is attempt to build on one of the postulated beginning and end flood strata and see if it Topples or not.
[quote]
JM: Actually, it is very much appreciated that all the data collected in the past 200 years falsifies the global flood and none supports it. One can take a small local event or observation and twist it into a catastrophic framework, but it always falls apart in regional correlation.
[quote]
--I beg to differ. At least in some of the issues I have researched.
You simply cannot treat a global flood in isolation and this is a major failure of young earth creationism. This is not a minor fault, it is a severe and major shortcoming of the entire story advocated by young earthers. You cannot tiptoe around this issue although that's precisely what ye-earthers do by trying to deflect attention by proposing models of CPT and other meaningless models without the ground truth to back up the models.
--I think it is appropriate to formulate the model and subsequently test it. Yes it is a major failure, I hope that future research will either resurrect a young earth, or conclude that it simply isn't feasible.
JM: It's been shown that it cannot be fit anywhere by the same people who originally thought it to be so. I suspect that this is the reason that ye-creationism mostly dances around the specifics because it kills them everytime.
--There aren't very many specifics that have recieved much attention by those doing the YE research either. Could that be the reason that 'it kills them everytime'?
The Cenozoic/Mesozoic does not work because of the evidence for paleosols, evaporites, continental sandstones, river meanders, fossil burrows and trackways etc etc etc.
--I don't think it works either, but not for the same reasons. I think the Paleozoic/Mesozoic is the only one that holds promise because of the sudden appearence of 'complex' forms of life.
JM: You explained what you think just fine. The problem is that you supplied no data telling me when the flood happened.
--I didn't intend on doing that.
Don't feel bad, you're not alone in this.
--I don't feel bad, I feel like we are in dire need of good research on CPT and its implications.
Q. How was anything alive to make tracks late in the flood in any flood model?
A. I dunno, go ask the biogeography guys. All I care about is preserving the remnants in the GC.
They wouldn't have been able to. Tracks, nests, burrows, and ecological and paleontological correlations within and between strata are important falsifications of the global flood hypothesis.
To say nothing of the important role biogeography played in both Darwin's and Wallace's conception of the theory of evolution.
-Neil, (Onetime Ph.D. candidate in biogeography.)
Last edited by NeilUnreal; 13th October 2003 at 10:26 PM.
--200 years ago we didn't have knowledge of the convection and plastic deformation that takes place in the mantle, or the required mineral physics in order to hypothesize runaway subduction.
JM: None of that was needed to observe the sedimentary record and understand that it could not be harmonized with a global flood.
Seems to me that all of the things being discovered quite recently, and the increased availability of comprehensive and detailed data is what is and is going to setting the stage for any possible explaination of the earths geology on a short time scale.
JM: What's been discovered recently to fit everything into a short time scale? Baumgardner does not publish his material in conventional science. Why? Because he'd be torn apart for the misuse of the math and the assumptions he makes that are way off base. There's been nothing published in mainstream literature that makes a global flood any more palatable or harmonious with ground truth geology.
--Why havent we figured out exactly how geomagnetic reversals occur? because either (1) we don't have the appropriate data, or (2) we don't have an appropriate model of the geodynamo. Or even both. I think a similar situation is with CPT. Not until recently has a plausible basic model been formulated, and recent data is becoming sufficient to add onto the theory one piece at a time.
JM: Where has Baumgardner's model been tested by other geodynamicists and verified? Where has Baumgardner's model been published in the mainstream literature? Science does not occur in isolation. If Baumgardner wants to be taken seriously then he must subject his model to the same rigorous critique that the rest of us subject our science to. At any rate, neither CPT nor geodynamo models are of much import to disproving the ground truth of the sedimentary record. They are convenient diversions for ye-creationists to avoid the very request I am making here and receiving no answer. The sedimentary record argues against a global flood. This was discovered by creationists 150+ years ago and is confirmed daily by the field geologist.
--Yup, and the big reason why they favoured uniformitarian geology is because, when you got millions of years, just extrapolate backwords! They certainly didn't have the resources available in order to simulate catastrophic overturning of the mantle or anything of that nature. This is the main reason why I lend the 'disproven 150/200 years ago' argument no credibility.
JM: Nope, remember the time scale developed by creationists 150+ years ago was not millions of years. You also did not follow the full argument. I said disproved 150-200 years ago, but supported by the subsequent 150-200 years of data. Geologists do not forget to build upon and test observations. The reason we have concluded there was no global flood is because of ground truth observation. The CPT you're enamored with is a model of a mythical planet that has not been subjected to subsequent testing by mainstream geology nor has it any ground truth evidence. This is an important criticism of the model. In terms of computer models, one can force the planet to behave anyway you want, but in the absence of ground truth, the models are meaningless. Ever ask yourself why Baumgardner's professional publications are NEVER young earth?
--Doesn't seem all that strange to me.
JM: You're young and have yet to develop ciritical scientific thinking skills. That takes more time and knowledge than you've had a chance to develop. That's not a criticism, it's merely the acknowledgement of your youth. You'll learn through time and given your voracious appetite for knowledge, you'll gain the necessary tools quicker than most.
--What did we know about paleosols and evaporites 150+ years ago? Paleopedology was not very well understood at all until very recent times.
JM: It does not matter what we knew 150+ years ago. The point is that based on ground truth observations, geologists were able to falsify the flood 150+ years ago. Our knowledge of paleosols and other ground truth features have only reinforced those conclusions. As our knowledge base grew, it became more clear that the geologic record could not be harmonized with a global flood.
--Yes the question does remain, for reasons given. All we can do now is attempt to build on one of the postulated beginning and end flood strata and see if it Topples or not.
JM: Yes, that's the point of this thread. When did it begin? When did it end? What's funny is that geologists can correlate much smaller catastrophes on a global or regional basis, but ye-creationists are unable to constrain THE DEFINING event in earth history. That alone would make me put on my skeptics hat.
--I beg to differ. At least in some of the issues I have researched.
JM: Bald assertion. Where's the sedimentary ground truth for the flood?
--I think it is appropriate to formulate the model and subsequently test it. Yes it is a major failure, I hope that future research will either resurrect a young earth, or conclude that it simply isn't feasible.
JM: Not models, ground truth is needed for these issues.
--I don't think it works either, but not for the same reasons. I think the Paleozoic/Mesozoic is the only one that holds promise because of the sudden appearence of 'complex' forms of life.
JM: Which one? Paleozoic or Mesozoic? You are backing yourself into a corner. I urge caution in your choice, but I'm interested in your logic for deciding that the 'sudden appearance of complex forms of life' is evidence for the flood. Please expand.
--I didn't intend on doing that.
JM: I know you don't! Remember, I'm a strong advocate for your further education!
I think it is appropriate to formulate the model and subsequently test it. Yes it is a major failure, I hope that future research will either resurrect a young earth, or conclude that it simply isn't feasible.
It was concluded long ago that the young earth is not feasible. It seems to me as likely that future research in chemistry will bring back phlogiston as the source of combustion as it is that some future research will bring back the global flood.
So... by how many magnitudes have you over estimated it as a 'falsification'? Tell you what, I'll personally direct you to my response when I give it, or would you like to contribute your thoughts since you have been able to take the information he supplied and conclusively falsify CPT?
Why bother? I'll leave that to Bill. As I have pointed out CPT falsifies itself by cooking the earth to death many times over. And don't bother telling us that shooting the oceans into space solves the problem unless you can do more that just bring up this ad hoc hypothesis with no justification whatsoever. Meanwhile I look forward to your explanation of how the sedimentary record in the ocean basins can be reconciled with CPT. How are you doing with explainng all the course grained rocks in the ocean crust? I also look forward to your explanation of how the crust and lithosphere can be rapidly cooled and still produce coarse grained rocks. I gave you some references to help you get started. Anyway we have threads for those discussions.
Maybe the superposing deposit wasn't deposited by a cyclonic current? Also,I explained this by saying, "The existance of fossil tracks, nests, eggs, mud cracks, fluvial currents etc. depend on the depositional environment."
And that depositional environment could not have been during the late stages of a global flood.
I see that you really don't appreciate the fact that the advancement of science requires modification as more and more data is taken into account. It isn't moving flood boundaries around at our convenience, its moving them in light of the data.
The point is that there are no data you can use to define the flood boundaries because there was no global flood.
For example, I'm sure that if it was initially argued that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary were Cenozoic/Mesozoic and then it was subsequently shown to be implausible from some set of data, the suggestion that 'well maybe a global flood didn't happen at all' would pop up all over the place. Instead of falsification, this merely may indicate that the pre-flood/post-flood boundary is somewhere else. This line of reasoning also can apply to other geologic arguments against the floods occurence.
The Yellowstone fossil forests are Eocine. If you think they are flood deposits that puts the flood post flood boundary somewhere in the Cenzoic. However, you have just it made it clear that you will arbitrarily move the flood boundaries to avoid falsifications. Thank you for making the point so clear.
You can't define the pre-flood/flood boundary or the flood/post flood boundary. The point is that anywhere you arbitarily define the boundary data can be found falsifies some of the deposits, such a paleosols, as flood deposits. This is why the flood boundaries must be kept fluid in YEC, so that you can arbitrarily move them around falsifications as you have just admitted.
Still the question remains. If this was such a unique event in the history of the earth why is there no evidence of where it starts and stops in the geologic record. The flood supposedly covered the entire earth and yet there are no globally correlated "flood boundaries". Why not? Don't you think there should be?
The frumious Bandersnatch
[quote=TrueCreation][quote=lucaspa]For instance, the Flood is said to be very violent and very gentle all at the same time. A violent Flood is used to explain the fossilized forests of Yellowstone. But a gentle Flood is used to explain the dinosaur nests in central Montana. Just 200 or so miles apart, the waters of a global Flood are supposed to be incredibly violent and completely still at the same time.
--??? Thats a very odd falsification. Of course degrees of energy or 'voilence' will be variable at any one instant, but not at any one location. I think this is just one more example of futile attempt to simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
--We can infer that the deposition of the Yellowstone fossil forest lithofacies were so called "high energy" deposits because of the volcanic origin of the ash fall and the conglomeratic mud flows. There isn't very great YECist literature on the yellowstone fossil forest's.
Remember, there are over 14 sequential forests there. The YEC literature addressing that is primarily from Henry Morris and says the forests weren't grown (despite the evidence they were) but represent 14 different depositions as a violent flood swept up forests from other areas and sequentially dumped them there. Now remember, all we have is what is present on the earth at the time of the Flood. Which means the extensive Maiasaura nests discovered by Horner had to have existed at the time of the Flood to be buried. They are only about 200 miles from Yellowstone. The nests are intact, which means no rushing water went over them otherwise they would have been swept away.
So, while the Flood is sweeping up 14 different forests all around Yellowstone and depositing them at Yellowstone, the water at these nests is perfectly still. What is worse, since the forests are deposited sequentially, with layers of dirt between them, it means that the tree-carrying water has to come in surges. Given the size of the Yellowstone forests such a surge would have to cause water movement 200 miles away.
Now, you note the evidence of volcanic deposition at the Yellowstone forests. Note that such evidence happens between EACH layer. But that can't be because the Flood covered all the earth. Therefore there are no volcanoes above water that can erupt and put ash at the site. Your own evidence falsifies that the forests are the result of a single Flood. Instead, they are the result of a forest growing up, then being obiterated by nearby volcanic eruptions with mud and lava flows, a new forest growing up, and the process repeated.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Look you are the one pushing CPT. This is what Baumgardner himself says about CPT
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...aumgardner.asp
Sounds to me like all the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments are being deposited by very violent processes. So how do we get animal tracks, nests and eggs in both the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments?
The frumious Bandersnatch
Baumgardner's ad hoc hypothesis to account for crustal movement is indeed falsified by the tracks, nests, and varve deposits. Think of the earthquakes that such rapid crustal movements are going to generate. Think of the tidal waves and movement of water above the surface such earthquakes would generate. Even if the initial water over the nests were gentle, the earthquakes of CPT would shake apart the nests and generate enough water movement to disrupt them. Those nests simply can't be there if CPT is true.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
--Have you ever read the actual literature, or do you just jump in gung-ho and swallow everything you read on the internet that appears to contradict young earth geology? I've read some of the literature on the Specimen ridge fossil forests the implications don't seem too contradictory.
The web article quoted the original articles. If you have read the literature, then please quote from the papers the paragraphs (entire paragraphs please, so we can have context) that you think aren't contradictory to a Flood.
--Is John Baumgardner the infallable YEC? Nope. This is a suggested hypothesis.
Fine. We are taking it as a hypothesis and falsifying it by comparing it to already existing data.
[quote] existance of fossil tracks, nests, eggs, mud cracks, fluvial currents etc. depend on the depositional environment.
And we are saying that CPT is going to create such a depositional environment everywhere that such deposits are impossible. Simple deductions of the consequences of CPT.
Again, you cannot simulate a global flood in a bathtub.
And yet Austin does just that to simulate the sand dunes in the Coconino deposits. Chris, that's the whole problem with Flood geology. It's not the least bit consistent.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
--Is it possible that I cannot refute all of these arguments because I havent done the relevant research? Is it possible that if I had done the relevant research, that I could put up a feasible rebuttal? I think so.
No, you can't. Chris, remember that geologists started out as Flood geologists in the 1700s. They sequentially falsified strata after strata as being caused by a Flood. They kept modifying Flood geology so that it would only cover limited number of strata. In the end, the Flood was falsified as a cause for all strata. The final nail in the coffin came in 1831 when Rev. John Sedgwick, the world's foremost geologist and President of the Royal Geological Society, announced that the last possible strata -- the superficial gravels and morraines -- could not have been caused by a Flood.
The data that falsified a Flood then is still out there now.
See Davis A. Young's The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. He will walk you thru each step of the process, including referencing all the relevant early literature.
What you are getting now are more recent falsifications. They are just icing on the cake.
"I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2. Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort mentioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relationships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimentary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation." Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.
__________________ "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Linear Mode
