My Omphalos Challenge

FishFace · Feb 1, 2008

Lakercom said:
The earth had nowhere near the height of landmass that we have today. The continents were probably more clustered, perhaps even into a single mass.

This is an ad hoc explanation - i.e. there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the continents were different a few thousand years ago. We know how fast they move now and we know that for them to move faster would produce an awful lot of heat via friction.

There surely were only small hills and no mountains, at least to the height of what we call mountains here in British Columbia.

"surely?" How so?

As to how the animals were fed on the ark that is also a puzzle, but solvable. There were approximately 15,000 air breathing species on the ark. The ark is large enough that approximately half the ark would be required to house the animals. This is not impossible. The average dinosaur was only the size of a sheep and if immature ones were used they would be even smaller.

Many animals require a significant amount of training from a parent in order to be able to successfully find food, walk, fly or whatever.
Many have specialized diets and eat only one other animal or species. Many are purely carnivorous.
Almost all sea creatures are specialised for a certain salinity of water. A sudden mixing of fresh and salt water would be lethal to virtually all species. Land plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize without access to carbon dioxide underwater.
After the flood, every animal had to get back to its special habitat - the koalas only went to Australia, the polar bears all went north and the penguins went south. They had to do this without the (presumably by now quite hungry) lions and T-Rexs chomping the smaller guys.
They then had to produce, from either one or 7 breeding pairs, the entire earth's population in just 4,000 years. Even if this were possible - it isn't, and not just because of time but also because of problems with incest - this should show up as a massive genetic bottleneck. But it doesn't. And of course, if you say only "kinds" went on the ark, whatever they are, you have to evolve - in just 4,000 years - all the other species that we see today.

You've got a bit of a problem.

As to how the waters abated quick enough after the flood, evaporation would not be sufficient to do the job but the uplifting of land mass would. I listened to creation scientist (Emil Sylvestru) at a local church recently who said the model for continental drift works best at a speed of four metres per minute or something like that so the uplifting of the land could have also occurred at a significant rate to accomplish this.

You know what happens these days when the continents move quickly?

The tectonic plates aren't just little floating islands - they have to scrape past one another. That, by the way, is like taking a two cliffs, mashing them up against one another, and trying to drag them past each other. You are trying to do this at 4 metres per minute!
Do you know what friction is? I can tell you that trying to drag two continental plates past each other releases an awful lot of energy.

The ice age following the flood can be shown using a climate model with atmospheric dust (from volcanoes and/or wind erosion caused by high winds without plant cover) and warm oceans. The ice age would have lasted approximately 1,000 years.

Evidence? How come noone noticed this? You'd think the Egyptians would have something to say about building their pyramids when it was so nippy.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 1, 2008

Lakercom said:
Wiccan_Child said:

Which kinda flies in the face of 'natural processes'. How can something be considered a natural process if it requires the suspension of natural laws?

Click to expand...

God exists outside of the dinmensions of this earth and is all powerful so He can suspend the natural laws and/or control them however He wants.

Nevertheless, such processes are not 'natural', since they require the suspension of the 'natural'.

Moreover, what do you mean by 'God exists outside of the dimensions of this Earth'? Indeed, how is this at all relevant to the point?

Lakercom · Feb 3, 2008

Wiccan_Child said:
Nevertheless, such processes are not 'natural', since they require the suspension of the 'natural'.

Moreover, what do you mean by 'God exists outside of the dimensions of this Earth'? Indeed, how is this at all relevant to the point?

Yup, that is what I am doing .... trying how to figure out the multi-quote procedure. A few days ago I had to scrap 90% of my long reply to Wiccan_chid because it showed up as one long, continuous text without the required breaks to figure out who was commenting. If I get the hang of this multi-quote thing I will repost my defence as I save the info in a Word documant. I find the intructional info (i.e. FAQ - how to post. etc)on this website poor, at least for my wits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakercom

The earth had nowhere near the height of landmass that we have today. The continents were probably more clustered, perhaps even into a single mass.

This is an ad hoc explanation - i.e. there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the continents were different a few thousand years ago. We know how fast they move now and we know that for them to move faster would produce an awful lot of heat via friction.

Reply: As I mentioned in an earlier post/comment, Dr. Emil Sylvestru says the best scientific model shows the cntinental plate movement model to have the plates moving at a speed of 4 metres/minute so the friction thing was considered to arrive at a model. I am not a scientist and I am sorry, but I do not have the time to look it up and provide references and/or a link. Perhaps another time I will. For now I am spending my time trying to figure out this posting/quoting/replying thing.

Quote:
There surely were only small hills and no mountains, at least to the height of what we call mountains here in British Columbia.
"surely?" How so?

Fishface, I use the Bible as a reference book for deterining the history of the earth, and this discussion involves the physical history of the earth. this is my prsupposiotion. It might be said that your presupposition is that there was no supernatural events in the origin of the earth and you rely on uniformitarianism for your analysis. This would be your presupposition. I prefer an eyewitness to the origin ot the earth ..... God and He reveals it in the Bible. Since we do not have a detailed account of how all the natural events occured in this historical physical event I am using info from creation scientists as to how it all happened. Is this not the purpose of this discussion website (thread) ??

Wiccan_Child · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
Yup, that is what I am doing .... trying how to figure out the multi-quote procedure. A few days ago I had to scrap 90% of my long reply to Wiccan_chid because it showed up as one long, continuous text without the required breaks to figure out who was commenting. If I get the hang of this multi-quote thing I will repost my defence as I save the info in a Word documant. I find the intructional info (i.e. FAQ - how to post. etc)on this website poor, at least for my wits.

I look forward to your reply.

To start a quote, type, without the spaces:

[ q u o t e ]

Then place all the text that you wish to quote.
To end a quote, type:

[ / q u o t e ]

For instance, if I wanted to quote you saying "Yup, that is what I am doing .... trying how to figure out the multi-quote procedure.", I would type:

[ q u o t e ]

Yup, that is what I am doing .... trying how to figure out the multi-quote procedure.

[ / q u o t e ]

Now, if I remove the spaces, it becomes:

Yup, that is what I am doing .... trying how to figure out the multi-quote procedure.

If you want to put the person's name in the top of the quotation box, you replace [ q u o t e ] with:

[ q u o t e = person's name ]

When you click 'reply', the person's post comes up with quotation markers around it already. Then, I just copy-and-paste the opening marker, place a [ / q u o t e ] where I want to make my first comment, make my comment, and then paste in the opening marker.

Alternatively, just highlight the text you want to put in quotation marks, and press the 'quote' button (found above the text box, and below the font bar).

Hope this wasn't completely baffling

FishFace · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
Reply: As I mentioned in an earlier post/comment, Dr. Emil Sylvestru says the best scientific model shows the cntinental plate movement model to have the plates moving at a speed of 4 metres/minute so the friction thing was considered to arrive at a model. I am not a scientist and I am sorry

Unfortunately, that's not really sufficient. I don't have any idea who this Sylvestru guy is. Is he a scientist? Is he published? What are his qualifications? In short, is there any reason at all that I should trust his word over what I know about physics and geography?
I appreciate you're trying to figure out more nuts-and-boltsy bits at the moment, but these are things you will need to consider if you are to be convincing. Like I say, rubbing two massive slabs of rock past each other isn't an easy thing to do. The force has to come from somewhere and the energy lost due to sticking has to go somewhere - heat? earthquakes? These are the two realistic options, neither of which is good news.
We also, by the way, see no evidence of this kind of continental speeding in the rocks.

Fishface, I use the Bible as a reference book for deterining the history of the earth

First, what makes you think the Bible is a good reference?
Then, what do you think makes it a better reference than some other holy book?

this is my prsupposiotion. It might be said that your presupposition is that there was no supernatural events in the origin of the earth

No, it mightn't. Because that's not my presupposition, it's a conclusion (or, to be precise, a lemma) which I have come to by observation of the world - i.e. almost everything we have ever tried to explain supernaturally is explained just as well if not better naturally. We are left with a few things unexplained, but the supernatural attempts at explanation are weak and do not conform to scientific method - a method which has proved useful and reliable.
In effect, my presupposition is that there were no supernatural events unless there is evidence to the contrary.

and you rely on uniformitarianism for your analysis.

That is certainly a worthwhile assumption. If you go to the beach and see a footprint in the sand, you don't assume that it got there by any means other than someone treading there.
However, the only way you can justifiably make that exclusion is if you assume that the laws of physics weren't such that, a few hours before, the sand spontaneously arranged itself into a footprint.
We have to assume uniformity of nature to make sense of nature.

I prefer an eyewitness to the origin ot the earth ..... God and He reveals it in the Bible.

Correction: you prefer an account purporting to be eyewitness. In fact, no-one knows for sure who wrote Genesis, and most guys except for the real wacky think Moses did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Moses was knocking about the time of Exodus, not Genesis.
What makes you believe that this account is accurate was hopefully your answer to a question above.

Since we do not have a detailed account of how all the natural events occured in this historical physical event

That is, assuming it is historical.

I am using info from creation scientists as to how it all happened. Is this not the purpose of this discussion website (thread) ??

Well, we have to agree on foundational principles to get anywhere. I don't agree that the Bible is a reliable historical source, so you first need to justify that in terms of principles more foundational, and perhaps continue, until we come across something upon which we agree, or give up.
Assuming we agree at some point, we then have to go back up the chain of reasoning debating each point in the chain.

However, I need to return to an earlier claim - that of ad hoc argumentation. That means that you work from a certain claim, and then you try to fit everything else in around it. So, it is ad hoc to claim that the mountains must have been smaller because you haven't actually got any evidence for that claim. Why should we believe that? Because of something the Bible says? Then you know how to proceed.

Nitron · Feb 4, 2008

I don't have any idea who this Sylvestru guy is. Is he a scientist? Is he published? What are his qualifications? In short, is there any reason at all that I should trust his word over what I know about physics and geography?

I've talked to him online, and he's certainly not the most pleasant guy. As to his qualifications, I know zilch.

Split Rock · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
I prefer an eyewitness to the origin ot the earth ..... God and He reveals it in the Bible. Since we do not have a detailed account of how all the natural events occured in this historical physical event I am using info from creation scientists as to how it all happened. Is this not the purpose of this discussion website (thread) ??

God did not write the Bible. The Bible was written by people who were not around to witness the origins of the earth, therefore it is not an eyewitness account.

Lakercom · Feb 4, 2008

Thankyou Wiccan_Child for the excellent instructions on quoting. Here is the complete post of a few days ago, answering your challenge (questions). I look forward to doing more of the same and perhaps I will have time to place some supporting links and references. It would be wise if a moderator of this site would place your instructions in a/the user guide.

Wiccan_Child said:
Which kinda flies in the face of 'natural processes'. How can something be considered a natural process if it requires the suspension of natural laws?

God exists outside of the dimensions of this earth and is all powerful so He can suspend the natural laws and/or control them however He wants.

Wiccan_Child said:
Nevertheless, you made claims that I demonstrated to be false. It is not a question of interpretation; the notion of a global flood as Genesis has long been refuted.

It has been supported longer than it has been refuted. Almost all cultures have a flood myth, even those that are completely remote from the Middle East. Please remind me how you demonstrated my claims to be false.

Wiccan_Child said:
So why bother with naturalistic explanations?

Uh, because we live in nature and perhaps you will learn the truth (Truth).

Wiccan_Child said:
FYI: Christians have been saying it's 'soon' for 2000 years. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Then don't hold your breath. The time of the "end" (second coming of Christ) was compared in the Bible to the days of Noah . Noah built the ark for over a hundred years at God's command and preached to people the whole time of God's coming judgment. It is similar today.

Wiccan_Child said:
Which is why I puzzled over your motivation for this. Why postulate these 'natural' explanations when you're perfectly happy with the 'goddidit' one?

see above

Wiccan_Child said:
Yes, but not to the extremes you're talking of. Getting Everest from a hill in a matter of months or years by continental drift just wouldn't happen. Indeed, we would see it happen today if it did.

Sorry, you cannot interpret everything by Uniformitarianism i.e. interpret everything you can see by the rate of current processes and changes.
Consider Catastrophism. When Mt St. Helen's exploded the debris it created blocked a river to make a lake. Some time later, after the backed up water filled the lake, the new outflow of the lake carved a valley (canyon) by water erosion in a very short time, not "millions of years", like most explanations given by old earthers i.e. Grand Canyon.
If the continental plates moved at 4 metres/ minute they could theoretically move a long distance in one year. To get an object moving, the breakaway force is much greater than the force required to keep it (continue) moving. This is a consideration when designing electric motors, for instance. The same can be said for elevation change.

Mount Everest? ..........piece of cake. God accomplished his purposes using natural events on the earth. He did this without "violating" natural laws, in my opinion, other than controling the timing of these events. There was no need for Him to "clean up" the earth" (as AV says) after the flood i.e. to eliminate the excess water on the earth, because there was enough water.

Wiccan_Child said:
You said:

"The continents were probably more clustered, perhaps even into a single mass."

"If all the water in the world today was in the form of liquid in the sea, it will only allow a depth of a few hundred feet higher than current sea level."

This is somewhat plausible if one does not conform to the standard "the flood happened 4000 years ago" timeline, since the geographical changes involved simply couldn't happen (or, at least, would leave a markedly different Earth than the one we have today).

It could have happened 4,000 years ago and it did happen approximately 4,000 years ago. You are using the opinions of old earth scientists and I am using the opinions of young earth scientists. Both groups of scientists have to INTERPRET the same evidence.

It is simple. The earth was a plain, relatively speaking, before the flood and it was mountainous in places after i.e. with much more relief (elevation differences).

Wiccan_Child said:
Except there's no evidence of an ice-age 4000 years ago. The last significant ice age (including mini-ice-ages) was ~10-20 thousand years ago.

Yes there is .........interpretation

Wiccan_Child said:
Question: what happened to all the plants? You say the landmasses were defoliated, but the Earth today has acres of flora. Indeed, trees have been dated to be older than 4000 years old (the supposed time of the flood), so what gives?

The oldest plant on the earth today is a tree -- 4300 years old so it has (only) lived since the flood or it was revived just after the flood. By revived, I mean the tree could have grown from a previously living root instead of a seed or it could have grown from a "cutting" (i.e. a twig that survived the flood and then put down roots and budded thereafter).

I work part time on a family farm. My experience with how weeds invade a plowed/cultivated field would indicate the earth could "refoliate" itself in a reasonable length of time. Even thought the earth would have been a barren landscape after the flood, say like the surface of Mars, seeds and roots would have grown again.

Wiccan_Child said:
On the contrary:

" The earth under the ice sheets is isostatically adjusted to the mass of ice. Even if 10,000 or more feet of ice were dropped on Greenland and Antarctica in only a few years about 4,000 years ago, it would take over 12,000 years to reach the observed (today) degree of adjustment. Scandinavia and Canada are still rebounding from the disappearance of glaciers covering them at the end of the last ice age (Strahler 1987, chap. 27). It would have taken thousands of additional years for the weight of the ice to push them down in the first place."

Ref: Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, chpt. 26-28.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH590.html

........interpretation

TheOutsider · Feb 4, 2008

Nitron said:
I've talked to him online, and he's certainly not the most pleasant guy. As to his qualifications, I know zilch.

He's a part of Creation Ministries International. Here's his profile: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3522 Looks like he has published in "secular" (their word, not mine) science journals but none of them while using a Young Earth model.

TheOutsider · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
........interpretation

I am seriously starting to hate that word.

FishFace · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
God exists outside of the dimensions of this earth and is all powerful so He can suspend the natural laws and/or control them however He wants.

That it doesn't answer the question; it's still not a natural process.

It has been supported longer than it has been refuted.

Makes no difference.

Sorry, you cannot interpret everything by Uniformitarianism i.e. interpret everything you can see by the rate of current processes and changes.
Consider Catastrophism. When Mt St. Helen's exploded the debris it created blocked a river to make a lake. Some time later, after the backed up water filled the lake, the new outflow of the lake carved a valley (canyon) by water erosion in a very short time, not "millions of years", like most explanations given by old earthers i.e. Grand Canyon.

But it was still uniform in the scientific sense - it left evidence indicating that it happened over a short period of time.

If the continental plates moved at 4 metres/ minute they could theoretically move a long distance in one year. To get an object moving, the breakaway force is much greater than the force required to keep it (continue) moving. This is a consideration when designing electric motors, for instance.

The force required to keep something moving is dependent on friction. A tectonic plate lies directly next to its neighbours, and on top of viscous magma. It also has a massive surface area in contact with the magma, and massive perimeter in contact with those neighbours. That's a LOT of friction. Therefore you need to explain where all that force came from, and where all the energy - lost to friction - went.

Mount Everest? ..........piece of cake. God accomplished his purposes using natural events on the earth. He did this without "violating" natural laws, in my opinion, other than controling the timing of these events. There was no need for Him to "clean up" the earth" (as AV says) after the flood i.e. to eliminate the excess water on the earth, because there was enough water.

Then it's up to you to explain the lack of evidence for all of this catastrophic alteration of the earth's geology.

It could have happened 4,000 years ago and it did happen approximately 4,000 years ago. You are using the opinions of old earth scientists and I am using the opinions of young earth scientists. Both groups of scientists have to INTERPRET the same evidence.

I would love to know just how a "young earth scientist" interprets the evidence! You should know that interpretation doesn't really involve any ad hoc.

I work part time on a family farm. My experience with how weeds invade a plowed/cultivated field would indicate the earth could "refoliate" itself in a reasonable length of time. Even thought the earth would have been a barren landscape after the flood, say like the surface of Mars, seeds and roots would have grown again.

Try refoliating your farm when there are only two pollinating insects.

Wiccan_Child · Feb 4, 2008

Lakercom said:
Thankyou Wiccan_Child for the excellent instructions on quoting. Here is the complete post of a few days ago, answering your challenge (questions). I look forward to doing more of the same and perhaps I will have time to place some supporting links and references. It would be wise if a moderator of this site would place your instructions in a/the user guide.

Haha, I'm flattered! But it's just basic HTML (I think...).

Lakercom said:
God exists outside of the dimensions of this earth

What does this mean, exactly?

Lakercom said:
and is all powerful so He can suspend the natural laws and/or control them however He wants.

I'm not questioning how he does this, or whether he can do this.
You said:

"When He performs a miracle it is produced by natural means or, more accurately, temporarily suspends the natural laws of the universe but the results are evident in the natural world otherwise we would not see them happening."

My point is that production requiring a suspension of the natural laws is exactly the opposite of production by natural means.

I am asking you to explain this apparent contradiction in the aforementioned quote.

Lakercom said:
It has been supported longer than it has been refuted.

So has Galen's theories of medicine. So has geocentrism. So has Creationism. The antiquity of a theory is no indicator of its truth. Nevertheless, the prevalence of flood myths across the globe is easy to explain: flood myths are common because floods themselves are common. You see few myths about novae because novae are rare. Earthquakes, lightning, volcanoes, and, yes, floods, are all common events, and, unsurprisingly, are all common in mythology.

My point is that the recurrance of flood myths is not indicative of the truth of any particular flood myth. Indeed, each myth differs from the last, the Genesis myth included.

Lakercom said:
Almost all cultures have a flood myth, even those that are completely remote from the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the story of Noah is not found in places remote of the Middle East.

Lakercom said:
Uh, because we live in nature and perhaps you will learn the truth (Truth).

Not if some magic being is suspending the laws of nature everywhere you turn. How can you deduce what happened in the past if things were poofed into and out of existance? This smacks of the Omphalos argument (which, ironically, is the title of this thread).

Lakercom said:
Then don't hold your breath. The time of the "end" (second coming of Christ) was compared in the Bible to the days of Noah . Noah built the ark for over a hundred years at God's command and preached to people the whole time of God's coming judgment. It is similar today.

So... when is the endtimes?

Lakercom said:
Sorry, you cannot interpret everything by Uniformitarianism i.e. interpret everything you can see by the rate of current processes and changes.

That is not uniformitarianism. Rather, it is the assumption that the fundamental laws of physics don't change over time and space. This is a well-evidenced assumption, but, apparently, one you reject (suspension of the laws of nature, indeed). In contrast with catastrophism, uniformitarianism is both well-evidenced, falsifiable, and infinitely more parsimonious. It's likelyhood rather exceeds that of catastrophism.

Lakercom said:
Consider Catastrophism. When Mt St. Helen's exploded the debris it created blocked a river to make a lake. Some time later, after the backed up water filled the lake, the new outflow of the lake carved a valley (canyon) by water erosion in a very short time, not "millions of years", like most explanations given by old earthers i.e. Grand Canyon.

The rapid formation of geological features is not dismissed out of hand; as you point out, we have first-hand evidence of it. However, there are geological features that we can show to have formed over very long periods of time (the Hawaii island chain, for instance, or flat-topped underwater mountains).

However, we know the Grand Canyon isn't 'recent', as this TalkOrigins article explains:

"We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself. "

From here. Emphasis mine.

So if the Grand Canyon formed rapidly, then we would see various features. Since we don't, the premise is false.

Lakercom said:
If the continental plates moved at 4 metres/ minute they could theoretically move a long distance in one year.

Well, yes: over 2,100 km in fact. However, since the plates don't do this (they move ~0.5cm - 8cm per year), nor is there any evidence to suggest that they do, your point is moot.

Lakercom said:
It could have happened 4,000 years ago and it did happen approximately 4,000 years ago. You are using the opinions of old earth scientists and I am using the opinions of young earth scientists. Both groups of scientists have to INTERPRET the same evidence.

By all means, explain how geological strata can be interpreted as supporting both YEC and the scientific consensus.

Lakercom said:
It is simple. The earth was a plain, relatively speaking, before the flood and it was mountainous in places after i.e. with much more relief (elevation differences).

Do explain how a single global flood can cause this change. Also explain why the myriad of independant dating techniques correlate with the 'old' age of the Earth (and other geological features).

Lakercom said:
Yes there is .........interpretation

Calling it an interpretation is not a valid counterargument. The whole point of science is to aquire knowledge objectively, and without a priori assumptions. Presuming a literal interpretation

Lakercom said:
The oldest plant on the earth today is a tree -- 4300 years old so it has (only) lived since the flood or it was revived just after the flood.

Actually, the oldest living organism is a King's Holly that has been vegitatively respawning itself for 43, 200 years. It would not have survived a global flood, and it apparently existed long before the universe itself.
Could it be that this plant is, in fact, God?

Lakercom said:
I work part time on a family farm. My experience with how weeds invade a plowed/cultivated field would indicate the earth could "refoliate" itself in a reasonable length of time. Even thought the earth would have been a barren landscape after the flood, say like the surface of Mars, seeds and roots would have grown again.

The key word there being 'reasonable'. There is oodles of archaeological evidence for ancient societies both sides of the magic 4000BCE marker, without any distruption. For instance, the Ancient Egyptians ultimately began founding what would become Egypt in ~5500BCE, with the Naqada venturing along the Nile at ~4000BCE. Is Egypt impervious to global floods or something?

Wiccan_Child · Feb 4, 2008

TheOutsider said:
I am seriously starting to hate that word.

That, sir, is just your interpretation! We'll be having none of that here.

Lakercom · Feb 5, 2008

FishFace said:
This is an ad hoc explanation - i.e. there's no reason whatsoever to believe that the continents were different a few thousand years ago. We know how fast they move now and we know that for them to move faster would produce an awful lot of heat via friction.

As plates begin to move against each other the heat can work to reduce the friction so rapid movement is not a problem. Dr. John Baumgardner is a foremost researcher in this theory. A condensed article on this theory (model) can be read at:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

Using supercomputers his model predicts a peak speed of .............. not a "slow" 4 metres per minute but faster in the realm of metres/second so plates could have moved over distances in the order of 10,000 km! Super heated steam would have created incredible precipitation like the 40 days and 40 nights of rain (deluge) described in the Bible. The first scientist to forward the theory of moving plates on/in the crust of the earth, in 1859, was a Christian.

The Bible, in fact, talks about the "the waters being gathered into one place" which can be interpreted as having the continents gathered into one place too i.e. one super continent. This scenario I am not sure of but the uplift of the crust in the oceans could have easily caused the water to overrun the land if their were no mountains yet, at the time of the flood of Noah.

FishFace said:
A sudden mixing of fresh and salt water would be lethal to virtually all species.

Percentage volumes of fresh water to seawater would have been relatively small, similar to today. The mixing of fresh water and salty seawater would have only involved the placement of terrestrial fresh water into seawater so the dilution of the sea would be minor. All sea life would have remained relatively intact as far as death by salinity change is concerned. If fresh water species died out (the Bible does not say all marine life was preserved) during the worldwide submersion of all land then, after the abatement of the water, many salt water species would have diversified in their genome to re-colonize the fresh water i.e. sea Salmon would swim inland to spawn and eventually diversify to develop Trout, the fresh water species of the same family (ditto for Crayfish and Lobster and ditto for salt/fresh water shrimp, etc).

FishFace said:
After the flood, every animal had to get back to its special habitat - the koalas only went to Australia, the polar bears all went north and the penguins went south.

All the bears on the earth could have developed (not evolved) from a single pair of bears in 4,000+ years. A bear harvested recently in my country, Canada, was half Polar Bear and half Grizzly Bear. God created the first bear with the genetic potential to diversify to many types of bears. The same with dogs, cats, horses (i.e. zebras), "cows", and people. All humans came from a single pair, Adam and Eve. The skin colour of "different races" of people is created by relative amounts of a single pigment. We all have the same pigment (unless albino) so we are all of one race, the race of Adam and Eve.

Rapid plate tectonics (movement) and continent development could have continued after the release of the animals so some species could have been cut off (i.e. isolation) from other continents in the case of Australia.

FishFace said:
They then had to produce, from either one or 7 breeding pairs, the entire earth's population in just 4,000 years.

You goofed on this one, FishFace. There were eight humans that survived the flood. They reproduced and repopulated the earth. They, along with all air-breathing animals spread out from "Mt. Ararat" (more accurately translated, the mountains of Ararat) - probably current Iraq or Iran. Regarding the rate of reproduction, I present the following quote from a recent ICR (Institute for Creation Research) article:

Quote from article, "How Populations Grow" by Henry Morris Ph.D. (Feb. 1, 2008):

"the average annual growth rate since the Flood need only have been one-fourth the present growth rate to produce the world's present population in the 4000 years (minimum) since that time.
All of which indicates that the evolutionary scenario, which assumes that human populations have been on the earth for about a million years, is absurd. The whole universe could not hold all the people! HMM"

This article can be read in its entirety at: http://www.icr.org/article/3589/

FishFace said:
Even if this were possible - it isn't, and not just because of time but also because of problems with incest - this should show up as a massive genetic bottleneck.

God created animals and man perfect (very good) during the creation week and ever since then the genetic code has been deteriorating. The deterioration was initiated by the sin of Adam (the fall) but that is a subject for another day. This is why humans lived extremely long lives (1,000+ years) in early history and why incest (incest became forbidden during the time of Moses), or inter-marrying at the time of Noah did not create the problems we see with inbreeding today.

The question, Did Cain marry his sister? was presented to the prosecution during the Scopes monkey trial, in the US, in 1925. The prosecution witness (attorney) answered this question incorrectly. Cain did marry his sister or another close relative, such as a niece.

Lakercom · Feb 5, 2008

FishFace said:
[/color]

Try refoliating your farm when there are only two pollinating insects.

Two bees came off the ark and one of them was a queen bee. The queen bee got help from the other bee, a worker bee, to make a nest and she laid eggs which the worker bee fed from nectar he collected in nearby fields. While collecting the nectar, pollen was transferred from one flower to another which allowed the flowers to increase in number. Some of the eggs hatched by the queen bee were drone bees which fertilized her so she could continue laying eggs and her offspring could continue pollinating plants etc, etc.

Eventually flowers and other crops spread throughout the earth, including ................. "my" farm.

Baggins · Feb 5, 2008

Lakercom said:
As plates begin to move against each other the heat can work to reduce the friction so rapid movement is not a problem. Dr. John Baumgardner is a foremost researcher in this theory. A condensed article on this theory (model) can be read at:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

Using supercomputers his model predicts a peak speed of .............. not a "slow" 4 metres per minute but faster in the realm of metres/second so plates could have moved over distances in the order of 10,000 km! Super heated steam would have created incredible precipitation like the 40 days and 40 nights of rain (deluge) described in the Bible. The first scientist to forward the theory of moving plates on/in the crust of the earth, in 1859, was a Christian.

.

This completely unscientific nonsense is refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html

Welcome to molten earth .

The only way Baumgardner can get around the vast amounts of heat energy that runaway subduction would cause is to invoke a miracle

Why bother with working out a natural explanation and then when its failure is pointed out state that a miracle occured?

Cut out the middle man and the redicule of the scientific establishment and invoke a miracle from the word go

I love the way you call him a researcher in this field as well, I think fantasist is closer to the mark

Who was this man who postulated plate tectonics in 1859, and what is the relevance of his Christianity? Most scientists are religious and I thought Alfred Wegner was the first to postulate teh movement of continents in the early 20th century, I would love to find out I was wrong.

Baggins · Feb 5, 2008

Lakercom said:
The Bible, in fact, talks about the "the waters being gathered into one place" which can be interpreted as having the continents gathered into one place too i.e. one super continent. This scenario I am not sure of but the uplift of the crust in the oceans could have easily caused the water to overrun the land if their were no mountains yet, at the time of the flood of Noah.

I assume that you are unaware that the continents have come together and moved apart more than once in the past and they will do again in the future?

Why would there be no mountains at the time of Noah? Are you adding things to the bible which aren't there? I think Christianity regards that as naughty.

It leaves you with the same problem as before; Baumgardners model is rubbish and it leads to an earth that is a lump or molten rock.

Lakercom · Feb 5, 2008

Baggins said:
Why bother with working out a natural explanation and then when its failure is pointed out state that a miracle occured?

I did not read where my explanation was "pointed out" to be a failure. Perhaps I confused you, or did not explain myself properly, in fact, I may have contradicted myself in my discussion. God used natural processes but directed the TIMING of them. He probably complimented the natural processes with divine intervention when He suspended natural processes (laws) by putting the animals in a hibernation and/or suspended their requirment for food. Do you not believe in the supernatural, Baggins? If you don't, this confirms that unlike you, I do not use naturalism to frame (restrict) my worldview.

Baggins said:
Who was this man who postulated plate tectonics in 1859, and what is the relevance of his Christianity? Most scientists are religious and I thought Alfred Wegner was the first to postulate teh movement of continents in the early 20th century, I would love to find out I was wrong.

Antonio Snider
This article leads off with info on him.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

Baggins · Feb 5, 2008

Lakercom said:
Percentage volumes of fresh water to seawater would have been relatively small, similar to today.

Ad hoc or evidence?

The mixing of fresh water and salty seawater would have only involved the placement of terrestrial fresh water into seawater so the dilution of the sea would be minor.

Ad hoc or evidence? You would need vast quantities of extra water, far more than is on earth today to flood th eearth unless you wish to cling to your ad hoc "no mountains" fantasy.

All sea life would have remained relatively intact as far as death by salinity change is concerned.

Why? Do you know anything about salinity tolernace in marine and freshwater animals?

If fresh water species died out (the Bible does not say all marine life was preserved) during the worldwide submersion of all land then, after the abatement of the water, many salt water species would have diversified in their genome to re-colonize the fresh water i.e. sea Salmon would swim inland to spawn and eventually diversify to develop Trout, the fresh water species of the same family (ditto for Crayfish and Lobster and ditto for salt/fresh water shrimp, etc).

This is interesting, why didn't humans notice this massive change in a primary source of nutrition happening all around them? The Greeks were keen observers of nature thousands of years ago, they noted a lot of interesting things about nature but not that.

Also when did this amazingly fast evolution slow down to the glacial rates we see today?

All the bears on the earth could have developed (not evolved) from a single pair of bears in 4,000+ years. A bear harvested recently in my country, Canada, was half Polar Bear and half Grizzly Bear. God created the first bear with the genetic potential to diversify to many types of bears. The same with dogs, cats, horses (i.e. zebras), "cows", and people. All humans came from a single pair, Adam and Eve. The skin colour of "different races" of people is created by relative amounts of a single pigment. We all have the same pigment (unless albino) so we are all of one race, the race of Adam and Eve.

Very amusing, same problems as above,

Rapid plate tectonics (movement) and continent development could have continued after the release of the animals so some species could have been cut off (i.e. isolation) from other continents in the case of Australia.

If you don't mind incinerating all of life on earth perhaps.

Why did all the marsupials wander off to Australia and the Americas then? Why did no placental mammals go to Australia at all? Why did horses wander to North America than migrate to Asia and then die out in North America?

So many questions, so much ad hoc.

You goofed on this one, FishFace. There were eight humans that survived the flood. They reproduced and repopulated the earth. They, along with all air-breathing animals spread out from "Mt. Ararat" (more accurately translated, the mountains of Ararat) - probably current Iraq or Iran.

Turkey actually, doesn't fill me with admiration that you cannot even get that right.

Regarding the rate of reproduction, I present the following quote from a recent ICR (Institute for Creation Research) article:

Quote from article, "How Populations Grow" by Henry Morris Ph.D. (Feb. 1, 2008):

"the average annual growth rate since the Flood need only have been one-fourth the present growth rate to produce the world's present population in the 4000 years (minimum) since that time.
All of which indicates that the evolutionary scenario, which assumes that human populations have been on the earth for about a million years, is absurd. The whole universe could not hold all the people! HMM"

This article can be read in its entirety at: http://www.icr.org/article/3589/

This is refuted at point 7 here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html

Morris' human growth population growth rates are highly improbable and not supported by any reputable scientist working that area.

Morris assumes constant growth rates that even written human history show to be erroneous - The Black Death.

see here

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.

Even Morris' ridiculous figures mean that just 13 people built the Pyramids

God created animals and man perfect (very good)

Perfect and very good are not synominous, so I imagine the rest of this particular argument is pointless.

during the creation week and ever since then the genetic code has been deteriorating.

What evidence do you have that DNA deteriorates? It changes, but why is that getting worse. We see bacteria becomming resistent to antibiotics surely that shows their DNA is getting better?

The deterioration was initiated by the sin of Adam (the fall) but that is a subject for another day. This is why humans lived extremely long lives (1,000+ years) in early history and why incest (incest became forbidden during the time of Moses), or inter-marrying at the time of Noah did not create the problems we see with inbreeding today.

Oh dear a trip back to fantasy land.

Thanks for the post, it gave me some much needed amusement. Your faith icon says you are a deist.

Is your long post just one big Poe??

I think it may well be.

In that case this is for the lurkers, bless them.

Baggins · Feb 5, 2008

Lakercom said:
I did not read where my explanation was "pointed out" to be a failure. Perhaps I confused you, or did not explain myself properly

Click to expand...

If you read my link you would see that it was baumgradner who recognised his hypothesis would be a failure without the miraculous intervention of a god.

I will re-post the link, you could try and read it this time

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html

here is the important bit:

Baumgarder's theory still does not work without miracles, as Baumgardner himself admitted (Baumgardner 1990a, 1990b).

Click to expand...

Hence failure.

It is doubtful you could confuse me when it comes to plate tectonics as I am a petroleum geologist/geophysacist with two relevant earth science degrees.

But go ahead and blind me with science if you wish

, in fact, I may have contradicted myself in my discussion. God used natural processes but directed the TIMING of them.

Click to expand...

Not only that he miraculously produced masses of extra water and then magiced it away, it took all the excess heat caused by runaway subduction away, he allowed a boat that no modern naval architect could get to float to float, he magically fed and kept all the animals on that unseaworthy structure for a year, he then guided all the animals to their correct places on earth, started up runaway plate tectonics again, took away the excess heat again, speeded up the evolution to hyperspeed and then slowed it down again.

That is not just fiddling with the timing

He probably complimented the natural processes with divine intervention when He suspended natural processes (laws) by putting the animals in a hibernation and/or suspended their requirment for food. Do you not believe in the supernatural, Baggins?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not, unless you have any evidence that it exists that we can study.

I see you have now dropped the timing argument and the natural processes argument and admit that it is only a wholesale abandonment of any natural laws that allows you to cling to this myth.

If you don't, this confirms that unlike you, I do not use naturalism to frame (restrict) my worldview.

Click to expand...

No you just make things up ad hoc, as most people who try and involve the super natural into earth's history do.

Antonio Snider
This article leads off with info on him.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

Click to expand...

Interesting, never heard of him, probably because he was not British or American in all honesty.

But what does his Christianity have to do with anything? The fact that he believed in a Noachian flood is neither here nor there, he either wasn't appraised of all the facts or he let his religion blinker him to the evidence. As I said most scientists worldwide are religious, it doesn't mean they accept nonsense like a Noachian flood.

My Omphalos Challenge

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

HIKES CAN TAKE A WALK

Conflation of Blathers

Member

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency