Comets/Global Flood explained

[HisMan]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising. It was a massive upheaval of the earth and created many features on the earth for which secular science has no answer such as the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic ridge, miles of sedimentary layers laid down in almost perfectly flat layers with no erosion or plant growth between these layers, and so on. When the fountains of the great deep burst forth (creating the 40,000 mile ocean ridges) it launched a massive amount of material and water into space creating what we now call comets, asteroids and meteors. God did not create a world with deadly space objects, a moon with massive impact craters nor dust and microbes that pollute outer space. That would hardly be, as God said, “very good.”

The study and explanation for this can be found in Dr. Walt Browns fascinating book “In the Beginning.” A scientific theory gains powerful validation when it correctly predicts future findings (as Einstein’s theories have). Dr. Brown has over 50 predictions, some made as far back as 40 years ago, of which several dozen have now been proven to be correct and which are also exactly opposite of what secular scientists had expected. Concerning meteors and such for example, Brown predicted, that since they came from the earth, they would contain water and microbial materials. Water has now been found on asteroids and there’s many examples of microbes being found in space. In just a few days, on Nov. 11th, the European Space Agency will land probes on a comet capable of detecting microbes and chemicals produced by living organisms. It is very likely they will find such evidences which would be further, massive verification of Brown’s theories and a global flood.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising. It was a massive upheaval of the earth and created many features on the earth for which secular science has no answer such as the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic ridge, miles of sedimentary layers laid down in almost perfectly flat layers with no erosion or plant growth between these layers, and so on. When the fountains of the great deep burst forth (creating the 40,000 mile ocean ridges) it launched a massive amount of material and water into space creating what we now call comets, asteroids and meteors. God did not create a world with deadly space objects, a moon with massive impact craters nor dust and microbes that pollute outer space. That would hardly be, as God said, “very good.”

The study and explanation for this can be found in Dr. Walt Browns fascinating book “In the Beginning.” A scientific theory gains powerful validation when it correctly predicts future findings (as Einstein’s theories have). Dr. Brown has over 50 predictions, some made as far back as 40 years ago, of which several dozen have now been proven to be correct and which are also exactly opposite of what secular scientists had expected. Concerning meteors and such for example, Brown predicted, that since they came from the earth, they would contain water and microbial materials. Water has now been found on asteroids and there’s many examples of microbes being found in space. In just a few days, on Nov. 11th, the European Space Agency will land probes on a comet capable of detecting microbes and chemicals produced by living organisms. It is very likely they will find such evidences which would be further, massive verification of Brown’s theories and a global flood.

The circumference of the Earth is only 24,901 miles. So you are saying that the mid-Atlantic ridge goes around the Earth and then some?

Why does God's version of "very good" require no asteroids, comets or impact craters on the Moon? Please quote the scriptures that state these items are not part of the original creation.

If all or almost all the impact craters on the Moon occurred in the first 40 days of the Flood, how much energy was released from those impacts and is there no heat evidence (molten rock under the Moon's surface) of that energy release a mere 4000 years later?

 

[HisMan]

The circumference of the Earth is only 24,901 miles. So you are saying that the mid-Atlantic ridge goes around the Earth and then some?

Why does God's version of "very good" require no asteroids, comets or impact craters on the Moon? Please quote the scriptures that state these items are not part of the original creation.

If all or almost all the impact craters on the Moon occurred in the first 40 days of the Flood, how much energy was released from those impacts and is there no heat evidence (molten rock under the Moon's surface) of that energy release a mere 4000 years later?

A baseball, for just one example, is perhaps 10 inches around but the seam is at least 20 inches. Information on the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic rift, which similarly goes around the earth like a seam, can be found extremely easily all over the net as well as be clearly seen on google maps. To answer all the question on the theories I mentioned would take many hours and volumes of material. I would suggest that people at least read some of the links (references) I provided to get answers.

As far as the moon, I'm not sure what your referring to but as predicted by creation scientists and mocked by evolutionists there is not only a massive amount of radiation (heat) coming from the moon but eruptions have now been detected. Many creationists predictions regarding heat on other solar moons as well as strong, active magnetic fields on planets and their moons have also been proven correct. All of this is exactly the opposite of what would be expected from a 4 billion year old solar system and opposite of secular predictions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A baseball, for just one example, is perhaps 10 inches around but the seam is at least 20 inches. Information on the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic rift, which similarly goes around the earth like a seam, can be found extremely easily all over the net as well as be clearly seen on google maps. To answer all the question on the theories I mentioned would take many hours and volumes of material. I would suggest that people at least read some of the links (references) I provided to get answers.

As far as the moon, I'm not sure what your referring to but as predicted by creation scientists and mocked by evolutionists there is not only a massive amount of radiation (heat) coming from the moon but eruptions have now been detected. Many creationists predictions regarding heat on other solar moons as well as strong, active magnetic fields on planets and their moons have also been proven correct. All of this is exactly the opposite of what would be expected from a 4 billion year old solar system and opposite of secular predictions.

Magnetic fields do not really decay over time like that. Comment, Mars has an especially weak one though.

 

[DerelictJunction]

A baseball, for just one example, is perhaps 10 inches around but the seam is at least 20 inches. Information on the 40,000 mile long mid-oceanic rift, which similarly goes around the earth like a seam, can be found extremely easily all over the net as well as be clearly seen on google maps. To answer all the question on the theories I mentioned would take many hours and volumes of material. I would suggest that people at least read some of the links (references) I provided to get answers.

What links? I thought you were writing about the mid Atlantic ridge alone. However, those ridges are explained easily by the fact that there is movement of the tectonic plates that form the Earth's crust. Add to that the fact that slow spreading of the sea floor explains the layers of sediment and their relative thicknesses from the edge of the oceans to the ridges. A sudden launching of water from the bowels of the Earth would not explain it, as far as I can tell.

As far as the moon, I'm not sure what your referring to but as predicted by creation scientists and mocked by evolutionists there is not only a massive amount of radiation (heat) coming from the moon but eruptions have now been detected. Many creationists predictions regarding heat on other solar moons as well as strong, active magnetic fields on planets and their moons have also been proven correct. All of this is exactly the opposite of what would be expected from a 4 billion year old solar system and opposite of secular predictions.

Yeah, those eruptions have been detected, at least the remnants of eruptions that happened over 10 million years ago have been detected.

I don't find your assertion about the expectations of a 4 billion year old solar system to be believable. Maybe some evidence should be presented at this point.

Also, you haven't supported your claim that God doesn't think that comets are "very good". One little scripture would suffice.

 

[Mainframes]

Do you honestly think no-one has an explanation for the mid-atlantic ridge?

Mid-ocean ridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[selfinflikted]

hoo boy.

 

[lasthero]

hoo boy.

I know!

I swear, this place was not this kooky before the start of the year. There was Aman, there was Dad, but that was about it. This year? It's just gotten weird and weirder and weirder. It seems like every other week, some new guy just shows up out of nowhere and says something completely off the wall.

 

[selfinflikted]

I know!

I swear, this place was not this kooky before the start of the year. There was Aman, there was Dad, but that was about it. This year? It's just gotten weird and weirder and weirder. It seems like every other week, some new guy just shows up out of nowhere and says something completely off the wall.

I'm almost certain we're all just being trolled. I mean, this OP and then another about a concave earth? WHAT? I've never even heard that suggested before, let alone heard of anyone actually believing it.

Things at work are really screwy today, too. I think there must be a full moon tonight or something.

 

[HisMan]

Magnetic fields do not really decay over time like that. Comment, Mars has an especially weak one though.

Well, the earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% in only 150 years. And pretty much every secular scientists on the planet expected there to be very little to no magnetic fields found on Venus, Neptune and other planets. And I can't post links so I guess you'll just have to google this for now, sorry.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, the earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% in only 150 years. And pretty much every secular scientists on the planet expected there to be very little to no magnetic fields found on Venus, Neptune and other planets. And I can't post links so I guess you'll just have to google this for now, sorry.

Except we have a record in the rocks themselves about the history of the Earth's magnetic field. It fluctuates and even changes direction.

 

[Dizredux]

Well, the earth's magnetic field has weakened 10% in only 150 years. And pretty much every secular scientists on the planet expected there to be very little to no magnetic fields found on Venus, Neptune and other planets. And I can't post links so I guess you'll just have to google this for now, sorry.

The earth's magnetic field reverses itself from time to time

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Magnetic Reversals

Have fun reading. Both are good articles.
Dizredux

 

[HisMan]

What links? I thought you were writing about the mid Atlantic ridge alone. However, those ridges are explained easily by the fact that there is movement of the tectonic plates that form the Earth's crust. Add to that the fact that slow spreading of the sea floor explains the layers of sediment and their relative thicknesses from the edge of the oceans to the ridges. A sudden launching of water from the bowels of the Earth would not explain it, as far as I can tell.

Yeah, those eruptions have been detected, at least the remnants of eruptions that happened over 10 million years ago have been detected.

Also, you haven't supported your claim that God doesn't think that comets are "very good". One little scripture would suffice.

Last first: I'm sure you know about basic assumptions. Most secular scientists' basic assumption starts with the big bang and they believe that natural forces worked to create life and all we observe. My basic assumption is that God's Word is true and that Genesis accurately (though not fully) describes God's creation. In all belief systems, logical conclusions naturally flow from one's beliefs. I would think it very clear and extremely logical that those of us who believe the Bible would conclude that a creation would not have been "very good" if there were tens of thousands of life ending objects floating in space. If you can't see that basic point there's no use continuing.

Another logical conclusion from Genesis, since the "fountains of the great deep burst forth" and that this water made the seas rise for 100 days, is that before the Flood there was a massive amount of water far under the earth's surface. From both Scripture and many other evidences Walt Brown has developed what he calls the hydroplate theory which states that the earth's plates moved very quickly during the Flood as they were "lubricated" by this water. In order to understand this even a little it's necessary to read Browns works [found on the net or his book--I should not have used the word "links" and only said what I put in parenthesis "(references)" as I am unable to post links on this forum]. It's a intense study so to try to explain it here to any satisfactory degree would be very difficult to say the least. Brown also predicted, again correctly and again decades ago, that earthquakes would move the earths continents towards the Pacific. His entire theory explains the earth's geographic feature much better than plate tectonics.

I don't find your assertion about the expectations of a 4 billion year old solar system to be believable. Maybe some evidence should be presented at this point.

I'll try to find references to this if I have the time (but I do have a life besides this). It may be difficult as it goes back before the space age and before satellites found much more radiation being emitted and much stronger magnetic fields on moons and planets than what was expected. What field of science are you in? Would it be something that be something that deals with the physics regarding the dispersion of heat from bodies in space? I know it's beyond my ability to do the math but from what I've read scientists expected to find objects in space, especially small moons, to be as cold as ice all the way to their core if they were, as thought, 4 billion years old.

I think that instead of me trying to explain, point by point and especially with my limited scientific education, you would be a lot better off reading Dr. Brown's book "In the Beginning." It's also extremely well referenced.

 

[HisMan]

Do you honestly think no-one has an explanation for the mid-atlantic ridge?

I didn't say nobody has an explanation' I believe Walt Brow's theories make much more sense. Again, predictions are the acid test of theories and Brown has over 50. That should at the very least make one curious but most people will just reject it outright without even reading one word.

Further, since you know so much perhaps you can answer a few questions:

1. Why is there original soft tissue and even DNA found in dinosaur bones supposedly 80 plus million years old and even in worms 500 million years old?

2. How did sedimentary layers that are hundreds of thousands of square miles in size and uniform in thickness come to be if they were supposedly laid down by rivers or in lakes?

3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever or either erosion or plant growth between these layers?

4. Since DNA is useless without proteins to decode and process it and since proteins can not exist without DNA how did the first life come to be?

5. Why is Carbon 14 found in oil, gas and coal deposits supposedly millions of years old when C 14 can not last for more than 100,000 years?

 

[HisMan]

Except we have a record in the rocks themselves about the . It fluctuates and even .

[Note; I have to delete URL links or this site won't let me post]

They "read" the rocks in such a way to theorize that the earth's field has reversed. There's no theory in physics as to how this can occur and there are other explanations for the orientation of minerals in rocks.

I've spent hours and hours on this already today and just have to ask, once again, that if you are truly curious then take the time to read about this and other subjects on Walt Brown's site.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Global Flood was much more that just water rising.

Indeed ... but to try and get these guys to stop thinking vertically and think horizontally for once is hard to do.

How, for example, how did the Ark get from Point A to Point B, a distance of some 2500 miles?

 

[lasthero]

1. Why is there original soft tissue and even DNA found in dinosaur bones supposedly 80 plus million years old and even in worms 500 million years old?

The worm thing is new, haven't heard that before. You should Sweitzer's paper, though. She's the one who found what you're probably referring to with the soft tissue. Basically, the tissue in question was sealed inside the fossil and preserved. There was no DNA in it.

2. How did sedimentary layers that are hundreds of thousands of square miles in size and uniform in thickness come to be if they were supposedly laid down by rivers or in lakes?

Lakes and rivers aren't the only thing that lay down sediments.

3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever or either erosion or plant growth between these layers?

There is.

4. Since DNA is useless without proteins to decode and process it and since proteins can not exist without DNA how did the first life come to be?

We don't know. So what?

5. Why is Carbon 14 found in oil, gas and coal deposits supposedly millions of years old when C 14 can not last for more than 100,000 years?

When has that happened? You can't link, but there's nothing stopping you from giving me the name of the paper you're referencing.

 

[Dizredux]

HisMan

I am not going to go into all of this but we need to look at some of what you feel are assumptions on the part of science.

Last first: I'm sure you know about basic assumptions. Most secular scientists' basic assumption starts with the big bang and they believe that natural forces worked to create life and all we observe.

Starting, the Big Bang is not an assumption but a conclusion arrived after quite a bit of controversy. It was not until confirming evidence was found that the Big Bang model was settled on. No assumptions involved.

Next the belief that natural forces worked to create life and all we observe. It is only an assumption when actively doing science. Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a God (although it is my religious belief that he exists) science cannot deal with it. So for the purposes of doing science, only natural processes are considered. It is not an assumption but simply a way of working. When evidence for a deity is found then it will be involved in the research. Right now, only natural processes have been discovered and no limits on them have been found that would indicate looking at the supernatural for explanations.

Science does not rule out the possibility of a deity being involved but so far natural processes have been adequate to explain what we find. I wish this were not the case as it would make faith a lot easier but we have to work with the world as we find it. It is God's work after all and we have to take it as he gave it to us.


So your starting point is not accurate. The points you listed are not assumptions. If you approach them as assumptions you will quickly get off track.

One of the best ways to deal with things like this, or at least I have found, is to be able to accurately explain both sides of the issue in your own words. If you can't do this you don't know enough to make judgements.

You seem to be making some effort to do this and I applaud you for this but you seem to be limiting yourself to sources that you agree with. That is not the best way do to this. Many of the questions you ask could be addressed with some simple basic research. The magnetic field issue is a good example.

Keep on plugging, this is some fascinating stuff and there is a lot of good things to learn.

Dizredux

 

[HisMan]

The worm thing is new, haven't heard that before. You should Sweitzer's paper, though. She's the one who found what you're probably referring to with the soft tissue. Basically, the tissue in question was sealed inside the fossil and preserved. There was no DNA in it.


We don't know. So what?.

1. Why is there original soft tissue and even DNA found in dinosaur bones supposedly 80 plus million years old and even in worms 500 million years old?
The worm thing is new, haven't heard that before. You should Sweitzer's paper, though. She's the one who found what you're probably referring to with the soft tissue. Basically, the tissue in question was sealed inside the fossil and preserved. There was no DNA in it.


3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever or either erosion or plant growth between these layers?
There is.

4. Since DNA is useless without proteins to decode and process it and since proteins can not exist without DNA how did the first life come to be?
We don't know. So what?

5. Why is Carbon 14 found in oil, gas and coal deposits supposedly millions of years old when C 14 can not last for more than 100,000 years?
When has that happened? You can't link, but there's nothing stopping you from giving me the name of the paper you're referencing.

Well this is a bit of a ticker; I spent a good hour responding and it didn’t post for some reason---humph!!!

Sweitzer’s find made big news but soft tissue finds actually go back to the ’60. After Sweitzer paleontologists started doing something I’d think a first grader should have figured out 100 years ago---they cut bones open to look inside. Lo and behold many were found to contain soft tissue and DNA and this has been confirmed by a dozen or so top universities as being original biologic material. Organic material found in 530 myo worms was reported in the Journal of Paleontology 88(2):224-239. 2014 Microstructure and Biogeochemistry of the Organically Preserved Ediacaran Metazoan Sabellidites

“Lakes and rivers aren't the only thing that lay down sediments.”

Other than volcanic eruptions, the vast majority of layers are laid down by flowing water and all scientists agree that the gigantic formations I referred to are that type of sediment. Other than rivers and (ah hum, ah hum) a massive flood what could have deposited these sediments? And yes, of course there are breaks in these layers such as in the Grand Canyon but there are thousands of square miles between hundreds of layers where there is no evidence of erosion or plant growth. In fact, quite the opposite as there are millions of animal tracks obviously made when these layers were wet/soft and before they could be eroded they were preserved by another layer deposited on top. Additionally, there are tens of millions multi-strata fossils.

"4. Since DNA is useless without proteins to decode and process it and since proteins can not exist without DNA how did the first life come to be?
We don't know. So what?"

So a person would have to be totally pig headed to not admit there’s no other explanation than intelligent design. I find it beyond belief that evolutionist desperately search radio waves (with MY tax dollars via the SETI programs) and would “know for a fact” that even the most simple code would have had to come from an intelligent source. But then they look not only at the massive complexity of life but also the fact that there are millions of examples where all structures have to be in place and have complete functionality in order to even exist but then deny an intelligent designer. There’s absolutely no use discussing the most basic logic with people like that.

Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones was reported at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore and an article in New Geology titled “Dinosaur bones have been Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years.” One source with good links can be found by googling Real Science Radio and searching for “Dinosaur soft tissue is original biologic material.” Just a little ways down the page is a picture of a mass spectrometer and a section titled Carbon-14 Found Everywhere It's Not Supposed To Be. It links to articles about C 14 being found in gas, coal, fossil wood and even diamonds supposedly a billions or more years old.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Last first: I'm sure you know about basic assumptions. Most secular scientists' basic assumption starts with the big bang and they believe that natural forces worked to create life and all we observe. My basic assumption is that God's Word is true and that Genesis accurately (though not fully) describes God's creation. In all belief systems, logical conclusions naturally flow from one's beliefs. I would think it very clear and extremely logical that those of us who believe the Bible would conclude that a creation would not have been "very good" if there were tens of thousands of life ending objects floating in space. If you can't see that basic point there's no use continuing.

Then you are adding to what the Bible says and assuming that what you consider to be very good is what God also considers very good.

Another logical conclusion from Genesis, since the "fountains of the great deep burst forth" and that this water made the seas rise for 100 days, is that before the Flood there was a massive amount of water far under the earth's surface. From both Scripture and many other evidences Walt Brown has developed what he calls the hydroplate theory which states that the earth's plates moved very quickly during the Flood as they were "lubricated" by this water. In order to understand this even a little it's necessary to read Browns works [found on the net or his book--I should not have used the word "links" and only said what I put in parenthesis "(references)" as I am unable to post links on this forum]. It's a intense study so to try to explain it here to any satisfactory degree would be very difficult to say the least.

Walt Brown's theory does not account for the massive amount of heat from friction that would occur if the tectonic plates moved that quickly. Most geologists place this oversight of Brown's in the category of Epic Fail.

Brown also predicted, again correctly and again decades ago, that earthquakes would move the earths continents towards the Pacific.

What does this even mean? The Earth's continents are not all moving toward the Pacific. Antarctica is extremely stationary.

His entire theory explains the earth's geographic feature much better than plate tectonics.

And you know this, how? Are you a geologist professional? Strangely, the real geologists in the scientific community disagree with Walt Brown, so how is it you can make the claim that his explanation is better than theirs?

I'll try to find references to this if I have the time (but I do have a life besides this). It may be difficult as it goes back before the space age and before satellites found much more radiation being emitted and much stronger magnetic fields on moons and planets than what was expected. What field of science are you in? Would it be something that be something that deals with the physics regarding the dispersion of heat from bodies in space?

Why does that matter? You won't accept the conclusions of PHD cosmologists, geologists and physicists and instead defer to a man who has a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering yet doesn't know to account for heat due to friction when moving billions of tons of rock at speeds approaching 3 miles per second (10,800 mph). Now, suppose that heat went into the water squirting out. That water would turn to steam and cook Noah and the animals. I guess thermodynamics was not Walt Brown's strong suit.

I know it's beyond my ability to do the math but from what I've read scientists expected to find objects in space, especially small moons, to be as cold as ice all the way to their core if they were, as thought, 4 billion years old.

References please.

I think that instead of me trying to explain, point by point and especially with my limited scientific education, you would be a lot better off reading Dr. Brown's book "In the Beginning." It's also extremely well referenced.

I have and I don't find it credible. More importantly, scientists in the relevant fields of study find it completely flawed and amateurish.