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.
This is a continuing excuse. But the problem is that there were the laborers. All those geologists in the 1700s and early 1800s. The data was there, and it falsified the Flood, not supported it. A problem with Flood geology now is that no one is going out and looking at the rocks. Whitcomb and Morris didn't. Baumgardner isn't. Austin does so only superficially. They all keep saying, like you do, that the answers will come eventually. But they don't and they can't. You simply can't get around the data that falsifies the theory.
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. 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. 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.
(sad smile) This is exactly what was done in the late 1700s. Keep modifying the Food theory and excluding strata as being laid down by the Flood. In your terminology, it would be modifying the pre-flood/post-flood boundary. The end result, there was no boundary. None of the strata were laid down by a Flood.
__________________ "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
Chris, a bit of history for you. I've confirmed this from other sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html
Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth." Rev. William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford), Rev. Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge), Rev. Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts), John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College), Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper), and Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up in a fundamentalist atmosphere, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America), all rejected the "Genesis Flood" as an explanation of the geologic record (or any part of that record), and argued that it must have taken a very long time to form the various geologic layers. Neither were their conclusions based on a subconscious desire to support "evolution," since none of the above evangelical Christians were evolutionists, and the earliest works of each of them were composed before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The plain facts of geology led them to acknowledge the vast antiquity of the earth. And this was before the advent of radiometric dating."
__________________ "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
It was concluded long ago that the young earth is not feasible.
--on what (very specific) grounds? Or by what observation? Heat flow? sedimentation rate? Your termite nests?
Why bother? I'll leave that to Bill.
--Well I'm glad you've admitted (indirectly, but most evidently) that you really cannot substantiate that the observations in Bill's links do indeed falsify CPT.
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.
--I plan on doing the research, give me a break... I'm sorry if I don't have the super-human research skills that you posess.. For all I know I will not be able to explain some of the features in the geologic record for 50 years.
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.
--Yes and I am currently reading some literature. Until then, I suggest reading up on the basics of hydrothermal circulation systems(and by basic I mean a little more explanitory than some online class notes).
And that depositional environment could not have been during the late stages of a global flood.
--Because...?
The point is that there are no data you can use to define the flood boundaries because there was no global flood.
--Well you can continue dilluding yourself with your premature conclusions. Personally, I am fine with having a basic understanding of why the pre-flood/flood/post-flood boundaries are suggested to be where they are (Paleozoic-Mesozoic or [personally, a less plausible boundary] Mesozoic-Cenozoic). As explained earlier, A Paleozoic-Mesozoic boundary is a promising pre-flood/flood boundary.
The Yellowstone fossil forests are Eocine[sic]. If you think they are flood deposits that puts the flood post flood boundary somewhere in the Cenzoic.
--Probably very late Cenozoic.
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.
--Um.. no, please understand this. Any moving of the flood boundaries will be a result of its falsification. This is the nature of any scientific development--advancement by modification to compensate data. I am not moving the goalposts here, I am locating them.
[/quote]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.
[/quote]--Um, no. See above. As I have told you before, the pre-flood/flood boundary is probably Paleozoic/Mesozoic (Ie, the pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary). That is probably the best estimate I have seen.
[quote]
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.[quote]
--I would expect there to be a sudden increase in more 'complex' animals for initial "flood sediments", hence my tendency to lean towards Cambrian+ sediments as being deposited during CPT.
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?
--I don't think I understand your question here. There are sediments all over the world of Cenozoic age, of Mesozoic age, and other ages. Those sediments, by their relative dates can be used as their own boundary between a lower and higher age.
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.
--I doubt its from Henry Morris, most of his literature is just his interpretation of plenty of other creationist literature. However I agree with the hypothesis of multiple surges depositing trees, abation probably wasnt violent in some localities.
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.
--I don't mean to burst your bubble, but Maisaura went extinct in the fossil record long before the Eocene fossil forests were buried.
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.
--Of course this can occur. What are you thinking, that as soon as flood sediments started being deposited, eustatic levels just suddently rose multiple kilometres and right at the end, they just flushed right off the continents?? This is hardly the case. At the time of Eocene deposition, eustasy at about the Yellowstone location could have been a short ways away from specimen ridge and the other fossil forest loci at the time. Either that or there was a nearby reservuoir of water (such as a lake).
--Besides, from analysis of the conglomerate encasing the fossil trees, it is a matrix supported sediment and therefore would have grown into a turbidity current if the flow progressed while submerged. Turbidity currents produce graded bedding and if graded bedding is not seen(which is true as far as I am aware) then burial of the submerged trees would have to be discounted. I think this indicates that subsequent to the hydrological deposition of the upright trees and the tuffaceous sandstone with which they are rooted that waters would have abated antecedent to conglomeratic flows.
Your own evidence falsifies that the forests are the result of a single Flood.
--I think I'll give it an official name, "bathtub hypothesis". Once again, this seems to be what you are applying here.
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.
--Or not.
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 14th October 2003 at 06:58 PM.
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.
--Then why do we find nests at all in the fossil record since Earthquakes happen all the time. Also, I havent researched this, but it may be possible that earthquake intensity would have been greatly reduced as soon as runaway subduction kicked in. Possibly, for instance, from inviscous lubrication of the material adjacent to the subducting slab. The greatly reduced viscosity of the whole mantle could also play a factor. But again, I haven't done great research on this. Earthquakes arent a great interest of mine, but in light of these kind of implications I may gain the interest sometime in the near future.
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.
--I don't think anything in the papers cited in the online article regarding specimen ridge are contradictory.
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.
--That is a very specific test. You can do that, you just can't expect to throw a couple of twigs, radioisotopes, igneous rocks, coal, insects, fish, and animals and expect it to sort out to that which catastrophic geology would predict, whether on the scale of the whole geologic column, or a single stratum. That would be an extreme example of the bathtub model.
This is a continuing excuse. But the problem is that there were the laborers. All those geologists in the 1700s and early 1800s. The data was there, and it falsified the Flood, not supported it.
--Really. I hope you don't mind giving us a summery of what they examined, what they concluded, and why they concluded it.
A problem with Flood geology now is that no one is going out and looking at the rocks. Whitcomb and Morris didn't. Baumgardner isn't. Austin does so only superficially. They all keep saying, like you do, that the answers will come eventually. But they don't and they can't. You simply can't get around the data that falsifies the theory.
--Well you've just listed a good fraction of all the laborers right there. And I thought you said that the problem with 'flood geology now is that "no one is going out and looking at the rocks"? What I am arguing is just that, we need more laborers doing that!
(sad smile) This is exactly what was done in the late 1700s.
--People in the 1700's didn't even have a model as sophisticated as the Brown's Hydroplate theory, let alone Kent Hovind's pathetic theory. Why should I give the conclusions of such people any serious merit if they didn't even have that? Its no wonder they couldn't reconsile the geologic data with a global flood.
Keep modifying the Food theory and excluding strata as being laid down by the Flood. In your terminology, it would be modifying the pre-flood/post-flood boundary. The end result, there was no boundary. None of the strata were laid down by a Flood.
--I'm sorry but nothing in that article explained in any adequate detail, "a summery of what they examined, what they concluded, and why they concluded it." All it basically says is that they looked at the GC and said that it couldn't be a result of a global flood. That says little to nothing..
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Last edited by TrueCreation; 14th October 2003 at 06:39 PM.
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.
--This is not a summery of what they examined, what they concluded, and why they concluded it. And your exerpt seems to be reflecting on relatively recent observations (at least definitely not 1700's - 1800's).
--I'm sorry but nothing in that article explained in any adequate detail, "a summery of what they examined, what they concluded, and why they concluded it." All it basically says is that they looked at the GC and said that it couldn't be a result of a global flood. That says little to nothing..
Cheers,
-Chris Grose
Here is a very good description of the geologic column and why it couldn't have been formed by a global flood.
Linear Mode
