Before the Flood

[Jimlarmore]

Which questions do you think the Flood hypothesis answers that traditional hypotheses do not? And which barriers do you think the Flood hypothesis still faces?

Questions about the origins of fossils is one. Fossils don't just happen when an animal dies and falls to the ground. Special conditions have to exist for fossils to form. The global flood produces those conditions perfectly in supplying a dynamic to bury, apply pressure and take away the O2. Since fossils are distributed world wide and are found on every single continent then we can assume that what ever produced them had to be a world wide event.

Out of place fossils in the strata that are not supposed to be there is a problem for the mainstream theories.

Questions about the origins and placement of paralell stratifications without any evidence of erosion is another that the uniformatarian theory fails to fully explain. The flood given the fact that it was world wide and more powerful than most folks think could have produced these stratas by the dynamic forces of huge wave action and liquefaction separating the granules rapidly and laying them down quickly does.

Apparent lack of good verifiable intermediate speciation is another question that specifically invalidates macro-evolution. I could go on and on but I have to go home for the day. I will pick this up tomorrow.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[juvenissun]

Sure we do. We know they were described that way because that's how the ancient Hebrews understood them to be! All kinds of extra-biblical sources (Jewish and otherwise) attest to this fact. It strikes me that you (and YECism as a whole) are simply trying to avoid the obvious.

Could you say it again what was the original understanding by Hebrews on this issue? How did they understand the word firmament?

 

[Mallon]

Since fossils are distributed world wide and are found on every single continent then we can assume that what ever produced them had to be a world wide event.

But why? There are bodies of water on every continent, too. Rivers, lakes, lagoons, ponds, swamps... Why must we invoke a global flood in order to account for the distribution of fossils? What about those strata that were deposited in aeolian conditions? Moreoever, which layers, exactly, were deposited by the Flood? If we can't identify them, what good does Flood geology do us?

Out of place fossils in the strata that are not supposed to be there is a problem for the mainstream theories.

Examples?

Questions about the origins and placement of paralell stratifications without any evidence of erosion is another that the uniformatarian theory fails to fully explain.

Examples?

The flood given the fact that it was world wide and more powerful than most folks think could have produced these stratas by the dynamic forces of huge wave action and liquefaction separating the granules rapidly and laying them down quickly does.

But if the Flood was so powerful, how could it have deposited fossils in what are obviously calm depositional environments? Think Lagerstatten. Think trace fossils. These are found throughout the fossil record and quite obviously fly in the face of Flood geology.

Apparent lack of good verifiable intermediate speciation is another question that specifically invalidates macro-evolution.

That's just blatantly false, though. We have excellent intermediate fossils for basal bilaterians, tetrapods, frogs, reptiles, mammals, whiles, birds, etc. You name it. Denying them doesn't make them go away. Heck, a new transitional snake was just named today!

http://redorbit.com/news/science/1335315/fossilized_snake_discovered_with_two_legs/index.html

 

[Mallon]

Could you say it again what was the original understanding by Hebrews on this issue? How did they understand the word firmament?

The same way the Egyptian and Babylonian people immediately surrounding them interpreted it: As a solid, crystaline dome that prevented the water above them from falling on their heads. That's what the word literally means. Read Lamoureux's article in the most recent PSCF.

 

[Molal]

Questions about the origins of fossils is one. Fossils don't just happen when an animal dies and falls to the ground. Special conditions have to exist for fossils to form. The global flood produces those conditions perfectly in supplying a dynamic to bury, apply pressure and take away the O2. Since fossils are distributed world wide and are found on every single continent then we can assume that what ever produced them had to be a world wide event.

Your assertion suggests that all fossils would be found in sediments deposited by water. Is this true? If not, why not? What would happen to your assertion when I show you a fossil found in aeolian sediments?

Out of place fossils in the strata that are not supposed to be there is a problem for the mainstream theories.

Evidence? Many years of study in geology have yielded no "out of place fossils".

Questions about the origins and placement of paralell stratifications without any evidence of erosion is another that the uniformatarian theory fails to fully explain. The flood given the fact that it was world wide and more powerful than most folks think could have produced these stratas by the dynamic forces of huge wave action and liquefaction separating the granules rapidly and laying them down quickly does.

I think you are trying to describe sedimentary bedding - bedding planes? Is that correct? You state that the absence of erosion between bedding planes is evidence for a world wide flood? Correct? This is clearly incorrect given that palaeosols exist, and other erosion markers on bedding plane surfaces (mud cracks, preserved rain drops, ripple marks....)

Please describe how a flood environment and liquefaction would create fining upwards sedimentary sequences?

Apparent lack of good verifiable intermediate speciation is another question that specifically invalidates macro-evolution. I could go on and on but I have to go home for the day. I will pick this up tomorrow.

What is intermediate speciation? Never heard of the term before. Can you provide some published research that discusses intermediate speciation?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

God bless to you as well.

 

[Mallon]

Bump. Still waiting to hear from Jim on these issues.

 

[juvenissun]

The same way the Egyptian and Babylonian people immediately surrounding them interpreted it: As a solid, crystaline dome that prevented the water above them from falling on their heads. That's what the word literally means. Read Lamoureux's article in the most recent PSCF.

Did they really suggest that it is "crystalline"? What did they know about what crystalline is? Could it mean "amorphous" instead?

 

[juvenissun]

I think you are trying to describe sedimentary bedding - bedding planes? Is that correct? You state that the absence of erosion between bedding planes is evidence for a world wide flood? Correct? This is clearly incorrect given that palaeosols exist, and other erosion markers on bedding plane surfaces (mud cracks, preserved rain drops, ripple marks....)

I am not sure about your argument about the Flood. But just correct one sedimentology/structure error: paleosol layer is not necessary conformable with the bedding (and all the bedding markers) below.

 

[Mallon]

Did they really suggest that it is "crystalline"?

Yes. See Ezekiel 1:22.

 

[Jimlarmore]

But why? There are bodies of water on every continent, too. Rivers, lakes, lagoons, ponds, swamps... Why must we invoke a global flood in order to account for the distribution of fossils? What about those strata that were deposited in aeolian conditions? Moreoever, which layers, exactly, were deposited by the Flood? If we can't identify them, what good does Flood geology do us?

The stratified layering shows evidence of massive water dynamics world wide. Animals were trapped into and sorted out by the actions that produced those stratas. It's not hard at all to identify massive sedimentarial deposits like salt domes or huge lime/chalk deposits.

Examples?

The stratification in the grand canyon shows little or no evidence of erosion even though they were thought to have been deposited there over millions of years.

But if the Flood was so powerful, how could it have deposited fossils in what are obviously calm depositional environments? Think Lagerstatten. Think trace fossils. These are found throughout the fossil record and quite obviously fly in the face of Flood geology.

The simple mechanics of water dynamics over an entire globe would not be every where the same. Cyclic huge waves and tides never seen before could have made areas of low turbidity at times. The most likely mechanism for this though is wave action and liguifaction for things like cyclothems, large transported breccia, cross bedding and the world wide sorting of fossils. Remember it takes very special conditions to produce fossils.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. See Ezekiel 1:22.

The "color of the crystal" does not mean the material is crystalline. What is the color of a (colorless) crystal? It is the color made by white light refraction. Any amorphous material denser than air can make it.

I think the firmament is an amorphous material. So, glass is one of the choices.

 

[Mallon]

I think the firmament is an amorphous material.

And I think you're reading a 21st century interpretation into the Bible. There are many other reasons for thinking the Hebrews understood the firmament to be solid. Not the least of which is their continuous reference to the "windows of heaven". Or the skies as a "hard mirror" mentioned in Job 37:18.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Your assertion suggests that all fossils would be found in sediments deposited by water. Is this true? If not, why not? What would happen to your assertion when I show you a fossil found in aeolian sediments?

It's an interesting find for sure. I read an article once of a boot that looked fossilized but in the final analysis it was a concretion and not true fossilization but hey show me what you got for sure.

Evidence? Many years of study in geology have yielded no "out of place fossils".

Even though it's a contested find , I'd say fish scales and angiosperm pollen in the pre-cambrian qualifies and out of place fossils.

I think you are trying to describe sedimentary bedding - bedding planes? Is that correct? You state that the absence of erosion between bedding planes is evidence for a world wide flood? Correct? This is clearly incorrect given that palaeosols exist, and other erosion markers on bedding plane surfaces (mud cracks, preserved rain drops, ripple marks....)

Please describe how a flood environment and liquefaction would create fining upwards sedimentary sequences?

Ok, I'll try. The mass and density of anything is influencial on how it gets moved no matter what the medium is that moves it. In the case of water the forces needed to produce what we see in the stratified layers were in some cases cyclically enormous. Water under this type of force can do unimagineable things. Cavitation has been shown to erode huge amounts of material in a short period of time.

Anyway, the sediments caught up in this will behave according to the laws governing hydrodynamics i.e. denser particles will sink and lighter ones ( dead organisms soon to become fossils ) float up until they come into contact with a liquifaction lens that is driven by wave action. Vast horizontal layers were formed and the animals were buried down and compressed then possibly uncovered cyclically over and over again until they sought their most favorable layer according to their density and their bouyancy. Animals that became fossils were almost always compressed greatly as we see in the case of fish fossils between cyclothems of shale or like material.

Unpublished experiments have been conducted to show this on a small scale and the sorting is amazingly similar to what the geological stratas show.

Also , we can see stratifcation similar to the geological column in things like the lahar and flooding during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. We also seen some polystrate trees produced during that event.

God bless to you as well.

Thankyou, your the first one on this forum to tell me that.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[juvenissun]

And I think you're reading a 21st century interpretation into the Bible. There are many other reasons for thinking the Hebrews understood the firmament to be solid. Not the least of which is their continuous reference to the "windows of heaven". Or the skies as a "hard mirror" mentioned in Job 37:18.

You may say that I am. I don't think there is anything wrong in doing that. You want to read the Bible the old fashion way. That is perfect. But I read it in a future tense (relative to authors' time), it is also OK.

Solid (amorphous) vs. liquid, hard vs. soft, they are all relative. There is no difference in their intrinsic physical property. For example, heat wave would see the air as a perfect mirror.

 

[Molal]

I am not sure about your argument about the Flood. But just correct one sedimentology/structure error: paleosol layer is not necessary conformable with the bedding (and all the bedding markers) below.

I do not understand your statement:

paleosol layer is not necessary conformable with the bedding (and all the bedding markers) below

What does that mean? Necessary conformable?

 

[Molal]

It's an interesting find for sure. I read an article once of a boot that looked fossilized but in the final analysis it was a concretion and not true fossilization but hey show me what you got for sure.


Even though it's a contested find , I'd say fish scales and angiosperm pollen in the pre-cambrian qualifies and out of place fossils.



Ok, I'll try. The mass and density of anything is influencial on how it gets moved no matter what the medium is that moves it. In the case of water the forces needed to produce what we see in the stratified layers were in some cases cyclically enormous. Water under this type of force can do unimagineable things. Cavitation has been shown to erode huge amounts of material in a short period of time.

Anyway, the sediments caught up in this will behave according to the laws governing hydrodynamics i.e. denser particles will sink and lighter ones ( dead organisms soon to become fossils ) float up until they come into contact with a liquifaction lens that is driven by wave action. Vast horizontal layers were formed and the animals were buried down and compressed then possibly uncovered cyclically over and over again until they sought their most favorable layer according to their density and their bouyancy. Animals that became fossils were almost always compressed greatly as we see in the case of fish fossils between cyclothems of shale or like material.

Unpublished experiments have been conducted to show this on a small scale and the sorting is amazingly similar to what the geological stratas show.

Also , we can see stratifcation similar to the geological column in things like the lahar and flooding during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. We also seen some polystrate trees produced during that event.





Thankyou, your the first one on this forum to tell me that.

God bless
Jim Larmore

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

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 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

 

[juvenissun]

I do not understand your statement:



What does that mean? Necessary conformable?

I mean that it is improper to relate paleosol with bedding and features on bedding.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

You do not need any evidence to make a new model.

 

[Molal]

I mean that it is improper to relate paleosol with bedding and features on bedding.

why?

 

[Molal]

You do not need any evidence to make a new model.

incorrect.

And why not?

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