Before the Flood

[juvenissun]

why?

I am surprised that I need to explain this. Did you say you have a graduate geology degree?

Paleosol layer indicates a surface of land. The surface of land does not have to be parallel to bedding.

 

[juvenissun]

incorrect.

And why not?

Also, you failed to understand our conversation.......

I think you just throw out why and why and why without thinking too much.

 

[Molal]

I am surprised that I need to explain this. Did you say you have a graduate geology degree?

Paleosol layer indicates a surface of land. The surface of land does not have to be parallel to bedding.

This has got nothing to do with our discussion - simply put, a red herring.

Also, sediments are general deposited on the surface of the land - this answer fails on multiple levels and obfuscates your original question - which has been answered.

 

[Molal]

I think you just throw out why and why and why without thinking too much.

Is that a flame and a bait in one post? I would rather you stick to discussing the question I asked instead of impuning my character.

You still completely failed to understand our conversation.....

 

[juvenissun]

Also, sediments are general deposited on the surface of the land -

I don't care what was discussed. I only pick up the erroneous statement. (To illustrate that not all geological arguments you made are correct)

Here is another one. There is, in most cases, no significant sedimentary deposit "on the surface of the land".

 

[Molal]

I don't care what was discussed. I only pick up the erroneous statement. (To illustrate that not all geological arguments you made are correct)

Here is another one. There is, in most cases, no significant sedimentary deposit "on the surface of the land".

And yet, to prove my point yet again, you provide no evidence whatsoever evidencing your claim.

A commonality amongst your discussion threads - debate without evidence.

Sediment is ONLY deposited on the surface of the land (yes, the ocean floor is the surface of the land - no, the ocean surface is NOT the surface of the land). Land surface also includes shallow surface environments such as caves, etc. The environment of deposition characterizes the facies (marine, terrestrial, lacustrine, etc.)

So, provide some evidence for your assertions. We are waiting....

 

[juvenissun]

And yet, to prove my point yet again, you provide no evidence whatsoever evidencing your claim.

A commonality amongst your discussion threads - debate without evidence.

Sediment is ONLY deposited on the surface of the land (yes, the ocean floor is the surface of the land - no, the ocean surface is NOT the surface of the land). Land surface also includes shallow surface environments such as caves, etc. The environment of deposition characterizes the facies (marine, terrestrial, lacustrine, etc.)

So, provide some evidence for your assertions. We are waiting....

I have never seen such a geological argument.

If so, how do you call the surface of the "real land" which is above the water?

Well, you can figure out a term for it, and you do not have to tell me that. Case closed.

 

[Molal]

I have never seen such a geological argument.

If so, how do you call the surface of the "real land" which is above the water?

Well, you can figure out a term for it, and you do not have to tell me that. Case closed.

The surface of the land is a super-surface - the surface of the solid earth. And to suggest that sediment is not deposited on the land surface is utter rubbish and clearly wrong.

This debate is going no-where. You are insincere in your discussions, and you completely lack the ability to evidence your assertions.

For lurkers who frequent this forum please take note, it is of vital importance that one can evidence their claims. Merely making a claim with no evidence is not a claim - it is a presumption, an idea.....nothing more.

As J.so eloquently put it, case closed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Don't think I can help you, given that there is no good evidence for a global flood. And if there's no evidence for a global flood, then there's no way we can make educated statements about events relative to it.

Perhaps YHWH covered the earth before Genesis 1 but left no survivors at all, wheres in the 2nd flood, He saves Noah and his family and since YHWH is out of space and time, this planet could be a 100,000,00,yrs old. The Hebrew is a pretty tough languge to translate so I normally go to the Hebrew [and the Greek texts for translation. Thoughts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t5925329-question-on-exouds-3-and-i-am-hayah.html

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Genesis 1:2 and the Land she-became/01961 hayah waste/vain and empty/void, and darkness on surface of submerged-chaos/deep/t@howm, and a spirit/breath of 'Elohiym brooding/rachaph over face of the waters

Genesis 6:11 And the Land, she is being ruined before the Elohiym and the Land, she is being filled wrong/violence/02555 chamac.
12 And Elohiym is seeing the Land and behold! she is ruined/07843 shachath, that he causes to ruin All Flesh Way of Him on the Land.
3 And Elohiym is saying to Noah end of All Flesh he come before Me, that she is full the land wrong/violence from presences of them and behold Me! ruining/07843 shachath them the land.

http://www.godandscience.org:80/apologetics/localflood.html

...........This paper has shown that the Bible declares the Genesis flood to be local in extent, though universal in its judgment of humans (with the exception of Noah and his family). The evidence presented here is purely biblical, although a strong case could also be given for extra-biblical reasons.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim,

We may not agree, but we can remain friends, remain brothers in Christ, I think (and hope) we agree that this is not a salvation issue. I look forward to the day I can ask God/Christ these questions

I look foward to that as well. As far as salvational issues go. I think when we take the word of God and impune it or say it's not literal or real but mythological we can get into trouble. The Bible stands as being valid or invalid as a whole. Jesus Christ made mention of the flood when He was here to validate it as a literal event. If we impune the flood event what's to keep us from doing the same to the life of Christ or Paul?

Unfortunately, unpublished experiments provide no information whatsoever. They are not available for peer review. It's almost like a conspiracy theory - hey, I have this evidence, but I can't show it to you......kind of ends a debate with no further discussion. Until you can provide any evidence for this, your argument is beyond debate since it is completely untestable nor reviewable.

I realize that is the way things go but to me there are a lot of things that don't necessarily make it to peer review that are very legitimate and true. For instance we have literally thousand of anecdotal accounts of a plant based , zero added fat diet healing cancer and reversing heart disease yet the medical establishment refuses to accept this because there has not been any major "national" research done on this that can be peer reviewed.

I think you do not understand liquefaction, hydraulic sorting, etc. Simply take some soil and rocks from outside, mix it up in a jar of water and let it settle out - what settles out first? Dense items then less dense items. This is something we do not see in the field.

Molal

When you expose suspended material to massive wave action you can achieve exactly what we see in the geological column. Experiments have been done that show this.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

I look foward to that as well. As far as salvational issues go. I think when we take the word of God and impune it or say it's not literal or real but mythological we can get into trouble. The Bible stands as being valid or invalid as a whole. Jesus Christ made mention of the flood when He was here to validate it as a literal event. If we impune the flood event what's to keep us from doing the same to the life of Christ or Paul?

The word of God is real. It's the way we interpret the word. For instance, you interpret Genesis to be literal - in that the events actually, literally happened. I do not, I take God's word as real, inspired, but a story to provide theological truths. Genesis had an aim for God's people - the aim to remove the multi-theistic beliefs, to provide encouragement - it was not meant to be an actual record of creation.

By saying Genesis is literal, I believe that you call God a liar - why did God say He did one thing and then create something which clearly has a different history? It doesn't make sense. If God created the world as literally stated in Genesis - why don't we see this evidence?

If an alien civilisation were to visit the Earth, they would say the planet was around 4.6 billion years old.

I realize that is the way things go but to me there are a lot of things that don't necessarily make it to peer review that are very legitimate and true. For instance we have literally thousand of anecdotal accounts of a plant based , zero added fat diet healing cancer and reversing heart disease yet the medical establishment refuses to accept this because there has not been any major "national" research done on this that can be peer reviewed.

Again, this is a conspiracy theorist mode of thinking......provide some evidence, that's all I ask.

When you expose suspended material to massive wave action you can achieve exactly what we see in the geological column. Experiments have been done that show this.

Evidence, peer reviewed papers? When providing this, it must be relevant to a global flood. Reverse sorting is observed in the rock record - geologists understand when it happens and why.....this is nothing new. The sorting that you describe originating from a global flood is highly unlikely. Without any evidence from you, your arguement is baseless.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

The word of God is real. It's the way we interpret the word. For instance, you interpret Genesis to be literal - in that the events actually, literally happened. I do not, I take God's word as real, inspired, but a story to provide theological truths. Genesis had an aim for God's people - the aim to remove the multi-theistic beliefs, to provide encouragement - it was not meant to be an actual record of creation.

So do you believe Jesus Christ was a literal man who was born of a virgin or was that a myth as well?

By saying Genesis is literal, I believe that you call God a liar - why did God say He did one thing and then create something which clearly has a different history? It doesn't make sense. If God created the world as literally stated in Genesis - why don't we see this evidence?

You mentioned that it's the way the Bible is interpreted that makes the difference. I say the same thing applies to the way you interpret the evidence of the geological column as well. I have a few geologists/Christian friends who do not buy into the mainstream paradigm of the uniformatarian philosophy for the geological column. If the evidence is interpreted based on an alternative perspective it allows for a global flood and a six day creation. It won't answer all of the questions brought up but neither does the current explanations or theories.

If an alien civilisation were to visit the Earth, they would say the planet was around 4.6 billion years old.

I have no problem with the terre firma we call earth being here for billions of years. I don't think life has been here that long. Radiographic aging uses way to many assumptions to be totally valid.

Again, this is a conspiracy theorist mode of thinking......provide some evidence, that's all I ask.

Ok, here's some quasi evidence. How many pharmacuetical companies have done any serious research on diet based therapy to treat disease? Ever wonder why? Because you can't patent a treatment based on nutrition. The bottom line is $$$$$$. There is ample evidence that most diseases will simply go away if you go to a strickly plant based zero added fat diet. Take a few minutes and read some of the witnesses/addecdotal accounts on this website:

http://www.hacres.com/home/home.asp

These articles go directly along with things like "The China Study".

http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

that tells us there is little or no heart disease or cancer in many rural regions of China because they eat primarily a plant based diet.

Evidence, peer reviewed papers? When providing this, it must be relevant to a global flood. Reverse sorting is observed in the rock record - geologists understand when it happens and why.....this is nothing new. The sorting that you describe originating from a global flood is highly unlikely. Without any evidence from you, your arguement is baseless.

Maybe for you it is. I am here to tell those who lurk that the way things appear to be based on the perspective of science is not necessarily the whole truth. There are many published articles here http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.htmlthat tell us there is evidence for a global flood. Most of these guys are experts in their fields.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

So do you believe Jesus Christ was a literal man who was born of a virgin or was that a myth as well?

Of course Christ is a literal man born of a virgin.

You mentioned that it's the way the Bible is interpreted that makes the difference. I say the same thing applies to the way you interpret the evidence of the geological column as well. I have a few geologists/Christian friends who do not buy into the mainstream paradigm of the uniformatarian philosophy for the geological column. If the evidence is interpreted based on an alternative perspective it allows for a global flood and a six day creation. It won't answer all of the questions brought up but neither does the current explanations or theories.

There are no other alternative methods of interpreting the geological column that is inherently self-supporting. The evidence (data. observations, etc.) do not support a six-day creation. If you think they do, evidence it.....why do you think creationists have failed to provide evidence, failed to provide any data whatsoever......it's because it doesn't exist.

I have no problem with the terre firma we call earth being here for billions of years. I don't think life has been here that long. Radiographic aging uses way to many assumptions to be totally valid.

How about the 23 other methods of dating besides radiation. And that they all support each other?

Ok, here's some quasi evidence. How many pharmacuetical companies have done any serious research on diet based therapy to treat disease? Ever wonder why? Because you can't patent a treatment based on nutrition. The bottom line is $$$$$$. There is ample evidence that most diseases will simply go away if you go to a strickly plant based zero added fat diet. Take a few minutes and read some of the witnesses/addecdotal accounts on this website:

http://www.hacres.com/home/home.asp

These articles go directly along with things like "The China Study".

http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html

that tells us there is little or no heart disease or cancer in many rural regions of China because they eat primarily a plant based diet.

Pharmaceutical companies not researching unpatentable items is not supression of science......this is a red herring, non-sequitor - whatever you wish to call it.

And, what about providing links to peer reviewed, punlished data instead of ad-hoc websites? They have no value whatsoever.

Maybe for you it is. I am here to tell those who lurk that the way things appear to be based on the perspective of science is not necessarily the whole truth. There are many published articles here http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.htmlthat tell us there is evidence for a global flood. Most of these guys are experts in their fields.

I am here for the truth.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Of course Christ is a literal man born of a virgin.

If you accept one part of the Bible but not the other then you are not being inconsistent on accepting it as the inspired truth and word of God.

There are no other alternative methods of interpreting the geological column that is inherently self-supporting. The evidence (data. observations, etc.) do not support a six-day creation. If you think they do, evidence it.....why do you think creationists have failed to provide evidence, failed to provide any data whatsoever......it's because it doesn't exist.

Sure there is, you just don't want to accept what is being published as truth because it contradicts what the mainstream paradigm says. I've already referenced several web sites like the ICR and creationresearch where quality work has shown solid evidence for the flood. Perspective is a lot when it comes to interpreting evidence. When you approach evidence with a biased slant then you will discount any other view that is unaccepteable by the mainstream scientific community.

How about the 23 other methods of dating besides radiation. And that they all support each other?

Please show how science uses anything but radiographic dating to proove the age of rocks or fossils in the rocks.

Pharmaceutical companies not researching unpatentable items is not supression of science......this is a red herring, non-sequitor - whatever you wish to call it.

I call it a travesty on the human race. Any time an enterprise even appears to take monetary gain over the well being of mankind it's a travesty. If these annecdotal accounts are valid and I think they are. BTW, there are literally hundreds of thousands of cases where some alternative doctors are achieving nearly 90% success over agressive forms of cancer like pancreatic, or bone cancers.

A doctor Esselystyn of the Cleveland clinic took 25 severly sick cardiac patients that mainstream medicine had given up on, i.e. told them essentially to go home and die. He put them on a zero added fat free plant based diet and within two years their angiography showed no occusion. Nearly all of them are still alive today some over 80 years old. The study lasted for over 20 years. Some of his patients were physcians who had heart attacks and were facing cardio disabilities for the rest of their lives.

I personally know several folks who have been diagnosed with colon, bone and breast cancer who went on this diet and after just about a year are totally in remission some for over 25 years. This kind of news should be shouted from the house tops by the pharmaceuticals if they are genuinely interested in the health and welfare of mankind. Unfortunately, they are in the drug selling business.

And, what about providing links to peer reviewed, punlished data instead of ad-hoc websites? They have no value whatsoever.



I am here for the truth.

I hate to say this but it appears you really aren't for the truth. If you close your eyes to any other form of good information except a system whose truth only comes from mainstream biased editors. Editors who allow only certain things to be published for peer review that fit what the mainstream says then you are limiting yourself to that perspective only. This causes you to compromise the truths in the Bible and rely on man's interpretation of things not God's.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

If you accept one part of the Bible but not the other then you are not being inconsistent on accepting it as the inspired truth and word of God.

I don't understand why you think you should interpret 2000 year old scripture the same as more recent scripture? What's your arguement - so far it is weak.

In addition, you conflate biblical inerrancy with literal interpretation.

Sure there is, you just don't want to accept what is being published as truth because it contradicts what the mainstream paradigm says. I've already referenced several web sites like the ICR and creationresearch where quality work has shown solid evidence for the flood. Perspective is a lot when it comes to interpreting evidence. When you approach evidence with a biased slant then you will discount any other view that is unaccepteable by the mainstream scientific community.

ICR, creationresearch is not science. They don't publish in peer reviewed journals, they don't do research......

I approach evidence with a critical eye. With the forward thinking of "disproving" the hypothesis. Creationism doesn't, it cannot be disproved - it isn't science.

Please show how science uses anything but radiographic dating to proove the age of rocks or fossils in the rocks.

Radiometric methods:
You have still failed to provide any evidence to show how and why radiometric dating is flawed.......

as well as:

Principle (Law) of Superposition - In an undeformed sequence of sedimentary rocks, the youngest beds are at the top and the oldest beds are at the bottom (also applies to volcanic rocks). Unfortunately, there is no place on earth where the entire history of sedimentation is preserved.

1. Principle of Original Horizontality - The observation that sediment particles deposited from water under the influence of gravity form essentially horizontal layers. Non-horizontal rocks have been disturbed after deposition and lithification.
2. Principle of Lateral Continuity - Sediment extends laterally in all directions until it thins, pinches out, or terminates against the edge of the depositional basin.
3. Law of Cross-Cutting Relationships - An intrusion or fault that cuts through another rock is younger than the rock it cuts. [Sills vs buried lava flow? Must look for heat effects.]
4. Principle of Inclusion - Inclusions are older than the rock that contains them.
5. Principle of Faunal Succession - Fossil organisms succeed one another in a definite and determinable order, so any time period can be recognized by its fossil content. General evolution pattern is from simple to complex organisms.

and:

Unconformities are surfaces of erosion or non-deposition of sediment that separate younger rocks from older rocks. The time gap in the rock record is known as a hiatus. Result in incomplete rock records. Three types of unconformities:

• Disconformity - Break in the rock record caused by erosion or non-deposition of sediment. Rocks on either side of the break are essentially parallel and may look like a bedding plane. Fossils must be used to determine the length of the break in deposition.
• Angular Unconformity - Tilted or folded sedimentary rocks are overlain by more flat-lying strata.
• Nonconformity - An unconformity between two very different rock types. Example: Boundary between an eroded igneous intrusion and overlying sedimentary rocks. May look like an intrusive contact, but there are no heat effects. Inclusions may be useful in distinguishing a nonconformity.

and:

Correlation involves matching up rock layers of similar age in different regions. Methods utilized include:

• Correlation by Physical Features - Matching rock units on a small scale by tracing the unit across an outcrop, noting the place of the unit in a sequence of rock strata, or by identifying the same bed in separate areas because of its distinctive composition (key beds).
• Correlation by Fossils - Matching rock units of similar age on a large scale by using index (or guide) fossils (fossils that were widespread geographically and lived only a short time). Allows widely separated rocks of different composition to be correlated. Overlapping time ranges of several sets of index fossils are typically used.

But, I was also talking about other dating methods beyond radiological. Such as these:

http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm

I call it a travesty on the human race. Any time an enterprise even appears to take monetary gain over the well being of mankind it's a travesty. If these annecdotal accounts are valid and I think they are. BTW, there are literally hundreds of thousands of cases where some alternative doctors are achieving nearly 90% success over agressive forms of cancer like pancreatic, or bone cancers.

Call it whatever you want, you are still conflating business with scientific development and research. A typical example of a non-sequitor.

A doctor Esselystyn of the Cleveland clinic took 25 severly sick cardiac patients that mainstream medicine had given up on, i.e. told them essentially to go home and die. He put them on a zero added fat free plant based diet and within two years their angiography showed no occusion. Nearly all of them are still alive today some over 80 years old. The study lasted for over 20 years. Some of his patients were physcians who had heart attacks and were facing cardio disabilities for the rest of their lives.

A search of all medical journals yields no data for Dr. Esselstyn. Naturally, a google search yields that he is the author of a book.....

I personally know several folks who have been diagnosed with colon, bone and breast cancer who went on this diet and after just about a year are totally in remission some for over 25 years. This kind of news should be shouted from the house tops by the pharmaceuticals if they are genuinely interested in the health and welfare of mankind. Unfortunately, they are in the drug selling business.

Data??

I hate to say this but it appears you really aren't for the truth.

But you did say it.....

If you close your eyes to any other form of good information except a system whose truth only comes from mainstream biased editors. Editors who allow only certain things to be published for peer review that fit what the mainstream says then you are limiting yourself to that perspective only. This causes you to compromise the truths in the Bible and rely on man's interpretation of things not God's.

Editors and peer review limit themselves to truth, data, evidence. They should not be allowed to publish un-evidenced guesses, ideas, etc. They should not be allowed to publish unrepeatable experiment.

What you advocate is a dark ages expression of human reasoning - "If it sounds true, it must be!"

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You should check out this website for a discussion on why genesis is allegorical:

http://www.itanakh.org/texts/tanakh/torah/genesis/index.htm

This will also aid you in your conflation of inerrancy and literalism.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Clear thinking folks who hear of conspiracies often turn their minds off to what is said. I used to be that way until I encountered what this article is talking about first hand and personally,

Anyway, it's called the brain police and the concept actually exists. IOW, if you start off a scientific paper in it's abstract that you intend to show by evidence that a global flood actually did occurr. Your chances of being published in literature like "Nature" or "Geology Today" is very slim indeed. Why? Because the mainstream paradigm does not want anything published that brings the current theories into serious question.

Read this article and make up your own mind.

http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/BrainPolice.htm

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Molal]

Clear thinking folks who hear of conspiracies often turn their minds off to what is said. I used to be that way until I encountered what this article is talking about first hand and personally,

Anyway, it's called the brain police and the concept actually exists. IOW, if you start off a scientific paper in it's abstract that you intend to show by evidence that a global flood actually did occurr. Your chances of being published in literature like "Nature" or "Geology Today" is very slim indeed. Why? Because the mainstream paradigm does not want anything published that brings the current theories into serious question.

Read this article and make up your own mind.

http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/BrainPolice.htm

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Sorry - that was utter rubbish, it quite literally made me laugh out loud.

I am certain that the lurkers on this forum will also see that this website is useless and provides no information whatsoever.

I would hope that lurkers view the websites I provided. On each website there is a list of references. You can go to the library and search out these references and see for yourself that the evidence is, indeed, true. And this is where conspiracy theorists fall down - they cannot fact-check or verify any of their assertions......

It is absolutely imperative that you check everything......this is how you search for the truth - do not blindly believe everything you read - verify it, check it out - it's a life long learning endeavour.