• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Flood Geology

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Jerry Smith, May 26, 2002.

  1. edgeo

    edgeo Member


    No, not possible.

    Except that this is not even nearly the case. The impact site you are talking about is only 40 degrees from the nearest rift and then there are all those other rift zones all over the world. Besides, where the heck does this layer of water come from? How did it get there and why did the crust float on it? Is there some evidence that it existed? Are you serious about this?
  2. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    Sure, we can do a (very simplistic model) with a water balloon. Of course, if you have it filled with water, the result in the first breach of the skin will result in a completely deflated water balloon, but we can do a model.

    Get two water balloons. Get two battery operated heating coils enclosed in a water-tight casing. Insert one heater into each balloon.

    Fill balloon A with liquid latex.
    Fill balloon B with a core of liquid latex and an outer shell of water.

    Wait for the temperature in the region closest to the heater to reach a very high temperature.

    Stand 10 feet away and throw rocks as HARD AS YOU CAN at both balloons. If you fail to rupture the skin, get bigger rocks, stand closer, throw more rocks, whatever until you manage to rupture the skins.

    Observe results. What is the shape and size of the skin ruptures? What other effects can you observe on the skin of the balloon, if any?

    Get more balloons and repeat.
  3. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    "how did it contain all of the superheated steam prior to the asteroid impacts?"

    The bible records in Genesis 2:6 that water/steam came up from the ground in stable conditions, and watered the land.

    "Unless we have something to explain, like evidence for a flood, it makes more sense to interpret all of these geological features in terms of well-understood gradualistic events known to create them."

    You mean, take a uniformitarian approach: that all these things which scientist rely on have stayed the samed for millions and billions of years - without change. To me, this is an illogical approach to science: assume nothing unless something else proves you otherwise. If you rely solely on factual evidence, you will only remain to guess the origin by theory, not science.

    Isn't it strange to you that the ONLY fossils we do find are all found in prehistoric mud, tar, and debris deposits? All fossils we see have required rapid encasement to actually be preserved! Scientist interpret this as meaning seperate incidents of "accidents" while I simply see them loudly proclaiming the same thing: there was a global flood.

    The whole point of my discourse has been to show you that the same evidence evolutions use, can just as easily be modified to support creationist theory: thus supporting my point that whatever you believe, bias or not, you will wind up finding support for it.

    The only difference between evolution and creation theory, however, is that one has the written account of observers who witnessed it.

    "In other words, is there evidence that there was a recent extinction of all life on earth except for a boat-load of people and animals, and ((maybe)) a very hardy fish or two."

    Wrong question. I would leave out "recent". Simply ask: Can evidence be found to support a massive extinction of all life on earth? Of course!

    "Chimpanzees could not have had a common ancestor for at least four or five million years. Same for Orangatans. Same for most species."

    Again, this is all speculation based on chance, numbers, and theory-fitting.

    "How do you account for diamonds? They were formed form intense pressure on coal deposits, right? So, was there a second great flood after the first one to turn all of this coal into diamonds?"

    It is the prediction of Flood theory that the flood caused the continents to form as they are now today - perhaps from one supercontinent. This massive land change (due to the shifting of the oceans) would render great pressure and energy on anything in it, worldwide. Don't you belive that is the right answer - at least, whether or not in your mind that it's possible? I encourage people to think for themselves. :) The bible records that it rained for just 40 days, but the waters kept growing for 180 days afterwards. It took a long time for that water to receed, a long time for earth to become stable once again, at least perhaps another thousand years, with an exponentially decreasing order of instability.

    "Where is the evidence of worldwide uniform deposits of sediments? Where is the one thick stratum with tools and remains of all of those people and animals who were living at that time?"

    I wouldn't imagine they would be found for the same reasons diamonds were made: massive world wide land changes would make the earth literally unrecognizable when it was all done.

    "Are you beginning to see why scientists don't accept the global flood model?"

    I know why they have all along. No need to point it out. They simply refuse to work on something they see no rational need to, and I agree. If I were them, and if I was guided soley by scientific processes and means, and evidence, I'd still need a theory of some kind to interpret it all because the answers simply aren't that obvious as one would want to believe. Of course, that theory is based on Darwinian imagination. Mine is based on historical witness.
  4. edgeo

    edgeo Member

    You have a rather odd definition of uniformitarianism. Basically it says that the present is the key to the past. It does not say the present is the past.

    That is the whole point. We have evidence upon which the assumptions are based.

    So, are you telling us that there are no fossils forming today? If there are, then are we in a state of global flood also? There is quite a bit wrong with your understanding of fossilization. There are fossils in sands, for instance and in volcanic rocks and debris flows, and in fluvial deposits. And not all require 'rapid burial.'

    Perhaps more later when I have time.
  5. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    Are you comparing apples-to-apples? Do your examples of fossils match the typical fossil record of the past? For example, can you find a cambrian explosion anywhere that was formed recently?
  6. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    Actually you have assumptions upon which your interpretation of the evidence is based.
  7. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    Are you saying that there were fissures in the Earth's crust prior to the asteroid impact? If so, and if there was a subterranean sea, what kept that water from erupting violently through those fissures? Have you ever cooked in a pressure cooker?

    If you know how a thing is formed, then see the thing in nature, you must have good reasons for postulating some other event that is not known to form it.

    For instance, I have a theory about how ant-hills are formed. According to my theory, ants squeeze apples out of the ground, and the result is the loose mound of dirt that looks like an ant-hill.

    My theory predicts that since there are so many ants, we should find a lot of apples on the ground, especially within a few miles of an ant-hill. Of course, I am aware that Apples grow on trees and they fall due to a well known natural law called "Gravity". Until I can prove that Ants have underground tunnels filled with Apples that they sometimes push through the ground, there I cannot interpret the evidence of Apples on the ground as evidence for my theory. We already have a good explanation of how they got there. My theory needs a prediction that can be uniquely confirmed.

    I could make a prediction that apple distribution should follow the inverse square law as measured from ant-hills. But if I did that, then I would have to go out in the field and do some research to check my prediction and that would be too hard ... plus I might be proven wrong, if my theory made a unique prediction.

    It isn't strange that the only fossils found are found in a substrate that allows fossilization (one that begins as a soft material that readily takes an impression, then hardens). What is strange is that fossils are found in practically every stratum of rock, from the highest strata to some of the deepest (though in "pre-Cambrian" strata, very few fossils are found). Radiometric dating confirms that the highest strata are much younger than the lowest, so if fossils are found in the high and low strata, then yes, the only decent interpretation is that they represent seperate incidents of fossilization. That's not hard to swallow, since local floods, volcanic eruptions, and other small natural disasters (or just plain accidents, such as animals being caught in tar-pits) create the correct conditions for fossilization over and over again, even today. Furthermore, some kinds of fossils (i.e. chalk deposits) can be formed just by the slow accumulation of normal, every day, non-catastrophic, sedimentary deposits.

    But when you actually EXAMINE the evidence to see if a particular interpretation fits, the evolutionary interpretation invariably does (for all kinds of evidence, not just the fossil record). The Flood Model interpretation is always contrived (at best) and only fits bits and pieces of the data. Furthermore, the Flood Model raises more questions than it solves by far.

    Then there is the QUANTITY of evidence to consider. The flood model accounts for very little. How does the flood model account for, for instance, The patterns of fossil deposition? Why always dinosaurs below elephants? Why oaks (and modern ferns) above extinct species of ferns?

    You haven't brought up any evidence of poor QUALITY, but those considerations can be made too.

    As pointed out above, there are a lot more differnces than that! And by the way, who do you suppose witnessed the flood? I thought that the oldest parts of the Bible were written (according to tradition) by Moses. If you say that God inspired Moses to write about things that God witnessed, you are not only begging the question, but you are asking me to accept hearsay.

    Ok, so maybe the great flood was 4 million years ago instead of 4 thousand. That would explain why all of the evidence for it has been erased. However, the global flood does not require just a massive extinction (there is evidence that several of these took place, and we are in the middle of one now!) - the global flood requires a COMPLETE extinction (with the possible exception of one boatload of terrestrial animals). There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

    This is based on observed mutation rates, and current genetic diversity, very carefully studied.

    Sure there was pressure, but where was the coal? Did the coal form during the first two weeks, then the diamonds in the year following?

    I guess maybe. "I guess maybe" doesn't make good evidence though.

    If that is the case, then why are there plenty of recognizable strata that can be examined now, complete with fossils of the organisms that were buried in them? Why is the clear pattern preserved from the top of the geological column to the bottom, if the earth's crust was basically randomized in the aftermath of the flood? Some accounting has to be made for the "flood stratum". Even if found in large chunks instead of a continuum, it must be found.

    The answers of conventional geology aren't obvious at all. That is why whole lifetimes of research and study are put into it by those who want to find those answers. And, as for Darwinian imagination, conventional geology, old earth and all, was first "invented" by geologists who believed in God as creator, before the time of Darwin. Your answers are not based on a historical witness, but on a strict modern interpretation of historical hearsay, at best.
  8. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    No, the primitive forms found in the Cambrian explosion are now all extinct. One would expect to find mammals, reptiles, etc in more modern fossils.

    In my own words from earlier:

  9. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    Nick, if you keep making this accusation without backing it up... either here in this thread, in a new thread of your own or in this one that was set aside for the purpose, I am going to start thinking that you are being intentionally dishonest!!
  10. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    I HAVE backed up repeatedly with quotes from evolutionists who admit that they are doing this. I'll repeat the most famous, which is a quote from Lewontin from The New York Review of Books. January 9, 1997

    I'll take that as a confession.
  11. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    Goes on to say:

    So basically you have an eminent biologist confessing to methodological naturalism?? And this is how you support your accusations of "fantasy", special pleading, etc??

    I think, with the frequency and kind of accusations you are making, we deserve to hear about some real life examples of this shoddy and biased science!!
  12. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    Another quote from Lewontin, in the follow-up discussion after his Review of Demon Haunted World, (from which you quoted). This discussion is in the New York Review of Books, March 6, 1997

    Did he forget to mention that when remarking that "lysosome's divergence betwen yeast and chickens is now known, from looking at organisms of various intermediate degrees of evolutionary relationship, to be part of a single evolutionary sequence," that this each of those organisms were imaginary, as were the conclusions that were drawn?
  13. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    you claim to have a historical witness to a global flood? How is that? Did he see the entire earth's surface covered in water, or just the surface of the earth that was known to him?
  14. edgeo

    edgeo Member

    Actually, I was just responding to the statement that all fossils must be rapidly buried and therefore force one to conclude that there was a biblical flood. It does not matter what the fossils are composed of or whether they compare to the fossil record. The statement was pure nonsense.
  15. edgeo

    edgeo Member

    Well, normally when an assumption has withstood a certain amount of scrutiny, it can then be held as a fact upon which to proceed forward as we do in science.
  16. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    First, I'm not sure what your point is here. Lewontin said what he said, and I quoted it. Are you denying that he said it? How much more clear a statement of an a-priori position do you want? He unashamedly said he advocates an a-priori commitment to material causes, and even goes so far as to say it is NECESSARY to prevent a divine foot from getting into the door. How can you possibly deny that he is therefore looking at everything only through the lens of materialism, and therefore must by necessity reject anything else in the evidence.

    C'mon, guy, think of what this means -- how profound the implications are.

    If one can ONLY consider material causes as an a-priori assumption, then the scientist has NO other choice but to believe in evolution. There IS no other option, because to entertain the possibility that creation occurred is to allow a divine foot in the door. And that's against the unspoken law. So the scientist must totally reject the possibility of creation before he even looks at the first piece of evidence.

    It should be pretty easy to see how this affects every other aspect of scientific discovery, formulations of hypotheses, etc.

    For example, if evolution is the only option (as I demonstrated it must be, above), then the world MUST be millions or even billions of years old. Given what we've seen in the past generations, we KNOW that evolution cannot occur in hundreds or thousands of years. Therefore the scientist has no choice but to assume that everything is millions or billions of years old.

    Therefore it is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE to entertain the notion that a rock or dinosaur fossil could possibly be thousands of years old, because that doesn't fit the a-priori assumption of age that goes along with the a-priori assumption of material causes. So when someone (like me or Josephus) offers an explanation of why the dates we arrive at for the age of fossils could be wrong, and these fossils could be the result of Noah's flood, of course you MUST reject it! You have no choice but to do so! To entertain the notion that these fossils could be thousands of years old is to allow that divine foot back in the door, and that is against your a-priori commitment to material causes.

    So if there is even the slightest possibility that Josephus and I (and thousands of others) have a valid point, you'll NEVER FIND OUT that we have a valid point because you are NOT ALLOWED to by your own a-priori commitment to material causes.

    If you're a thinker at all, you can easily see how this cascades down into every other aspect of so-called scientific discovery. In the end, every bit of evidence you examine must first pass the test of your a-priori assumptions. If it doesn't, it is clearly an anomaly and must be thrown out. So if the evidence actually points to creation, scientists who follow Lewontin's a-priori commitment to material causes WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE IT as evidence of creation because their a-priori commitment to material causes disallows the possibility BEFORE THEY EVEN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

    And that's exactly what's been going on.

    Now let's have a look at your quote.

    Great! He says "an enzyme, lysozyme...has totally diverged in sequence between yeast and chickens but is known."

    I don't happen to be familiar with this particular sequence. So what am I supposed to do. Take his word for it that it's known? How do I know it's NOT just another one of those cases where he looked at the blueprints for a Toyota Camry and a Toyota Avalon and concluded that they must have a common ancestor? I don't know that, because he gave absolutely no details whatsoever -- he just said it's known.

    Perhaps he detailed the whole sequence elsewhere, but I'm not going to just take his word for it -- especially when he's already confessed that he'll accept nothing but material causes no matter what the evidence actually shows.
  17. Greeter

    Greeter The Space Invaders did not get by on me!

    Entertaining response there npetreley (btw- I like your character- is he a cartoon weasal?).

    I have a couple of questions though. Based on what you posted above is it possible for a Christian fundamentalist to also be a scientist? What about a Christian who isn't a fundamentalist?

    Based on what the words "fundamentalist" and "scientist" refer to, can both be used in describing a person?

    Where do you think creation science fits into all of this?
  18. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    He's Daggett, from my favorite cartoon show ever, The Angry Beavers. It was a hilarious cartoon done by Mitch Schauer. It was extremely well voice-acted, wonderful character development of ALL the characters (most of which had names that were derived from places in California -- like Truckee, Oxnard Montalvo, Treeflower, Bing, etc.), and it had a cool 60's retro feel to it. It was on Nickelodeon for a while but it's not running anymore. The voice for Daggett (Richard Horvitz, I think) is now doing the voice for Invader Zim, another Nickelodeon cartoon that I don't like nearly as much.

    Anyway, I highly recommend the Angry Beavers if you ever get a chance to watch it. The halloween special is the best one of all. It's like a tribute to 1950s B-quality sci-fi movies, which I also love.

    Yes, I think you can be Christian and a scientist. And, other than issues of spiritual blindness and pride, I don't see why so many scientists -- including scientists who are Christian -- are so determined to believe that science can only deal with material causes. What difference does it make whether you are studying "what happened by accident through material causes only" or "what God did?" Isn't it just as interesting either way? Indeed, I'd have thought the latter would be far more interesting.

    So why not put the words "fundamentalist" and "scientist" together? I don't see why one cannot study the creation and the laws that govern it in a scientific manner just because one believes God created it supernaturally.

    I think creation science is an excellent field. I'd love to see more people involved in it. I've seen some fascinating research in this field, some of it excellent and shockingly well researched, some of it lousy and full of holes. But that's true of all scientific research.

    I believe that evolution is not compatible with the Bible, but I came to that conclusion quite some time after I became a Christian. So I also think you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. I believed in evolution for the first few years of my Christian walk. I was just wrong, that's all, and it took me some time to find out. ;)
  19. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    No, just denying that it has profound implications for everyday mundane science (as opposed to the philosophy of science), and that his view of the philosophy of science represents systematic bias.

    The commitment to material causes forces science to work only from the evidence, not make postulations of the supernatural based on ignorance or lack of evidence. If you read further in the book review you quoted from, you will see what I mean when he discusses Newton's gaffe (god of the gaps) and the correction by LaPlace. To be committed to natural causes is to confess ignorance when they are absent, not to imagine their existence.

    For one thing, scientists have other options besides evolution. Newton had other options besides Mechanics, and LaPlace had other options besides a refinement of celestial mechanics. Chief among these is acknowledged ignorance, something Newton was either too proud, or too commited to the supernatural, to admit. The earth was known to be old before Darwin, and was found to be that way by people without a philosophical commitment to materialism (i.e. Christians who believed in creation). They did however, have a commitment to methodological naturalism - their discipline required it. They could not discount the evidence of the old earth on the account of supernatural considerations, such as "God could have created the Earth with the appearance of age".

    If scientists agree with Lewontin (not all of them do, by any means), they have no choice but to reject supernatural causes as means of patching up theories, and to reject supernatural causes as implicit within theories - in other words, the science leads them to evolution, and the commitment to materialism forbids them from publishing speculation on "theistic" evolution when they present the evidence for the theories.

    To pretend that this means scientists fantasize and imagine the evidence is disingenuous at least. To pretend that this is a confession on the part of science of systematic use of flawed interpretation or the use of un-tested assumptions in their research is disingenuous at best. The assumption of natural causes is (at least to some degree) necessary for science to function. If the default position is that anything unexplained represents supernatural intervention, then every path of research is blocked by a cul-de-sac of the kind that Newton ran down.
    In the words of Lewontin (from just a couple of sentences past the point where your quote ends) "To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

    This is where you are wrong. This does NOT follow from Lewontin's quote, and it is simply NOT how science is done. No data can be "thrown out" (it must all be reported, no matter what its potential impact on the theory). ANOMALOUS DATA is treated as it should be treated. It is recorded, and attributed to corrupted samples or experimental error. ANOMALOUS DATA is not the same as DATA THAT WOULD FALSIFY. ANOMALOUS DATA is data that disagrees not with the theory, but with the statistically significant RANGE of collected data. ANOMALOUS DATA is treated the same in ANY field of research, not just evolutionary biology, so if you have a problem with the fact that it is reported and dismissed as error, then you have a problem with every field of science, not just evolutionary biology. In other words, you should not be going to doctors, using computers, or televisions.

    Nick, you may not believe this, but on this point (and this point alone), we have a very specific agreement. Namely that
    B) will remain ignorant of the supernatural

    but it certainly does not follow that they merely imagine the natural processes and natural causes that they DO find.

    There is a big jump from there to the kind of vitriolic insults you have been routinely casting at the evidence for evolution and the scientists who have found it.

    There is interpretation and there are assumptions in science. If you think that some of the ones used to establish evolution as fact and as well-supported theory are inappropriate, there is a place on this board where you can register your objections. You need not continue overstate your case and claim that because most scientists employ the kind of methodological naturalism that Laplace did, or the kind that Lewontin advocates, that evolution is based on inappropriate assumptions and flawed interpretations.
  20. Jerry Smith

    Jerry Smith Fish out of water

    He didn't just say that it's known, he said that it was known from "at organisms of various intermediate degrees of evolutionary relationship,". If you are interested in whether the conclusions that were drawn were legitimate, you could look up his paper. I'm just following your lead and quoting from the book reviews...