Psalmist confirms global flood!

[PaladinValer]

In other words, there is no such strata according to real science?

 

[Mallon]

The other, which I ascribe to, feels that the conventional column is of very limited utility and each set of strata need to be evaluated independently.

I think you would have a hard time trying to convince a sedimentary geology of that. It would be like telling a chemist that the atomic model doesn't work.

 

[laptoppop]

In other words, there is no such strata according to real science?

There's no reason to be insulting. Everyone agrees that much of the strata are sedimentary in nature. We just differ on how many floods/water events there have been.

 

[laptoppop]

I think you would have a hard time trying to convince a sedimentary geology of that. It would be like telling a chemist that the atomic model doesn't work.

Understood. Its not an easy "sell" -- its a major paradigm shift. However, I maintain it fits the observable evidence better than the conventional model.

 

[shernren]

Describing the strata in terms of a global flood explains many things found - the extent, thickness and often purity of the strata, the presence of pollen and various plant artifacts in precambrian strata, out of order fossils, multiple folded layers without cracking (i.e. folded while soft), polystrate fossils, the lack of expected gradual transition fossils (all of the fossils found represent animals adapted to their environment), on and on.

Ooh. Nine strawmen in one go. You might get indigestion if you try to swallow them all at one shot. So which one do you want cooked first? The chef's recommendation is polystrate fossils: the slightest touch of actual facts cooks right through and shows why they pose no difficulty at all for conventional geology.

But since you made the order, you can decide which we can deal with in detail. Unless, of course, you don't actually want to deal with any of them, and prefer your strawmen raw. ("I've already made up my mind, so don't bother me with the evidence!")

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The water on the planet could only have covered it in the distant past, billions of years ago, before continents formed. They cannot do that now. There isn't enough water.

There is as much water now as there was then. The volume of water in the seas far exceeds the volume of exposed land. There is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain. The highest mountain is no taller than a grain of sand on the surface of a basketball.

God established the boundaries of seas for a good reason: much of the population of the earth live close to the seacoasts, mainly for economic reasons. If frequent flooding occurred (economic) life as we know it would be impossible. Even then God speaks about "those who dwell carelessly in the coastlands."

Once again, because God still does allow local flooding from the sea (Indonesian tsunami, Bangledesh), the rainbow covenant must refer to the global flood of Noah's day.

 

[laptoppop]

Ooh. Nine strawmen in one go. You might get indigestion if you try to swallow them all at one shot. So which one do you want cooked first? The chef's recommendation is polystrate fossils: the slightest touch of actual facts cooks right through and shows why they pose no difficulty at all for conventional geology.

But since you made the order, you can decide which we can deal with in detail. Unless, of course, you don't actually want to deal with any of them, and prefer your strawmen raw. ("I've already made up my mind, so don't bother me with the evidence!")

Actually, we've gone over most, if not all, of these in the past, and so far the supposed "evidence" I've heard has not been convincing. I don't want to retread old ground right now, but I also did not want the statement to go unchallenged.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I always thought that the 'foundation' and 'pillars' that support the earth were special physical and spiritual principles used by God for this unique in all the universe creation.

 

[shernren]

Actually, we've gone over most, if not all, of these in the past, and so far the supposed "evidence" I've heard has not been convincing. I don't want to retread old ground right now, but I also did not want the statement to go unchallenged.

'E sits at ze table and looks at ze menu and fiddels vith ze cutlerie - and zen 'e does not order ze food! Vat an insult!

Ah well. If you don't want to revisit why flood models cannot explain the geographical distribution of "polystrate" whales in Peru, or how scientists detect reworked fossils and paraconformities without reference to a "standard column", that's entirely your prerogative. Just don't claim our evidence isn't convincing when you've put forward so little of your own that has not been refuted!

 

[Mallon]

Understood. Its not an easy "sell" -- its a major paradigm shift. However, I maintain it fits the observable evidence better than the conventional model.

Fair enough. But with all due respect, you have no formal training in geology, and I would much sooner take the word of a sedimentary geologist over that of a layman on the issue of correlative stratigraphy any day. It's easy to reject something you have not dedicated yourself to understanding.

I always thought that the 'foundation' and 'pillars' that support the earth were special physical and spiritual principles used by God for this unique in all the universe creation.

That's not what a literal/"plain reading" of the Bible says.

 

[laptoppop]

'E sits at ze table and looks at ze menu and fiddels vith ze cutlerie - and zen 'e does not order ze food! Vat an insult!

Ah well. If you don't want to revisit why flood models cannot explain the geographical distribution of "polystrate" whales in Peru, or how scientists detect reworked fossils and paraconformities without reference to a "standard column", that's entirely your prerogative. Just don't claim our evidence isn't convincing when you've put forward so little of your own that has not been refuted!

In terms of the polystrate whales - you have never explained how slow accumulations of diatoms can fossilize the whale without the whale decaying. The whales needed to be covered rapidly -- BUT there are multiple strata involved. The flood model handles it easily - with multiple small waves of water particularly dense in diatoms disturbed by the flood, including volcanic action and diatom blooms. The altitude of the whale fossils is also a huge problem for a uniformitarian model. How did the water reach so high?

 

[shernren]

In terms of the polystrate whales - you have never explained how slow accumulations of diatoms can fossilize the whale without the whale decaying. The whales needed to be covered rapidly -- BUT there are multiple strata involved. The flood model handles it easily - with multiple small waves of water particularly dense in diatoms disturbed by the flood, including volcanic action and diatom blooms. The altitude of the whale fossils is also a huge problem for a uniformitarian model. How did the water reach so high?

I'll take this back to the polystrate whales thread if you don't mind. I'm still waiting for any creationist to explain how they can derive a global flood from Psalm 104 Scripturally.

 

[laptoppop]

Fair enough. But with all due respect, you have no formal training in geology, and I would much sooner take the word of a sedimentary geologist over that of a layman on the issue of correlative stratigraphy any day. It's easy to reject something you have not dedicated yourself to understanding.

True, but I'm not presenting myself as a person with formal training -- just a person who is able to read and understand other folks (for the most part )-- including PHD geologists who are also YECs.

I would encourage you to investigate some of the post-grad courses in geology available at ICR. http://www.icr.edu/geology/info.html
The professors in the Geology dept are:
Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology

B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
​

Baumgardner, John R. - Associate Professor of Geophysics

B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles,1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983


Snelling, Andrew A. - Professor of Geology

B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/snelling.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=21
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/s_austin.asp
​

 

[Mallon]

I would encourage you to investigate some of the post-grad courses in geology available at ICR. http://www.icr.edu/geology/info.html

Thanks for the link, pop. I can't imagine how three teachers can teach 15 disparate geology courses between themselves. I would love to know what they teach in GE 506: Physics of the Earth's Interior. Do you suppose they've found evidence of sheol?

 

[busterdog]

Thanks for the link, pop. I can't imagine how three teachers can teach 15 disparate geology courses between themselves. I would love to know what they teach in GE 506: Physics of the Earth's Interior. Do you suppose they've found evidence of sheol?

Probably Gehenna. Sheol is presumptively empty at this time. Nonetheless, some Russians put a microphone down a really deep hole. You can't imagine what they heard. I heard all about it on Art Bell.

 

[laptoppop]

Thanks for the link, pop. I can't imagine how three teachers can teach 15 disparate geology courses between themselves. I would love to know what they teach in GE 506: Physics of the Earth's Interior. Do you suppose they've found evidence of sheol?

I would guess they don't offer all the courses each term - but I don't know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's not what a literal/"plain reading" of the Bible says.

I'm not a literalist.

 

[Assyrian]

There is as much water now as there was then. The volume of water in the seas far exceeds the volume of exposed land. There is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain. The highest mountain is no taller than a grain of sand on the surface of a basketball.

Unfortunately for you theory, it is nothing to do with the volume of the continents, but their height above sea level. Water fills the ocean basins first and there isn't enough left to cover the continents. You may scale the earth down to the size of a basketball, but the volume of water scales down too.

God established the boundaries of seas for a good reason: much of the population of the earth live close to the seacoasts, mainly for economic reasons. If frequent flooding occurred (economic) life as we know it would be impossible. Even then God speaks about "those who dwell carelessly in the coastlands."

That and wanting to create air breathing people in his image. The point is, he made these boundaries way back in his creation of the world, long before he made mankind.

Once again, because God still does allow local flooding from the sea (Indonesian tsunami, Bangledesh), the rainbow covenant must refer to the global flood of Noah's day.

He hasn't destroyed all of the land of Mesopotamia in a flood since has he?

But the boundaries we are talking about were established during the creation. Psalm 104 is a creation account. It is the same in Job 38 and Prov 8. If he flooded the whole planet in Noah's time it would have contradicted what he said in these passages.

 

[Jadis40]

Unfortunately for you theory, it is nothing to do with the volume of the continents, but their height above sea level. Water fills the ocean basins first and there isn't enough left to cover the continents. You may scale the earth down to the size of a basketball, but the volume of water scales down too.

This is actually a pretty good point, and one that I was thinking about as I was driving home from a couple classes I'm taking this summer (I'm taking classes to become an insurance coder). Assume first that the flood waters filled in the ocean basins first, (or at least seriously increased their depth) and then continued on past the shoreline so that every single square inch of the world was covered. With such a scenario as filled ocean basins and a whole planet covered in water, then the argument that the water would not have had anywhere to go becomes a valid point. It's like supersaturating a sponge, and trying to get the water out under water. Since water always seeks the lowest point, it really wouldn't have had anywhere to go. Makes sense to me why the flood could not have been global, and the local flood advocates have a pretty solid case, at least in my opinion.

 

[shernren]

This is actually a pretty good point, and one that I was thinking about as I was driving home from a couple classes I'm taking this summer (I'm taking classes to become an insurance coder). Assume first that the flood waters filled in the ocean basins first, (or at least seriously increased their depth) and then continued on past the shoreline so that every single square inch of the world was covered. With such a scenario as filled ocean basins and a whole planet covered in water, then the argument that the water would not have had anywhere to go becomes a valid point. It's like supersaturating a sponge, and trying to get the water out under water. Since water always seeks the lowest point, it really wouldn't have had anywhere to go. Makes sense to me why the flood could not have been global, and the local flood advocates have a pretty solid case, at least in my opinion.

Plus the Bible explicitly says that God sent a great wind to make the waters recede. If the Flood is a story, or a local flood, that makes sense. But when a Flood covers the whole planet where does a great wind blow the water off to?