Repetition in scripture

OntheDL said:

Hi Jim,

What do you do for a living? If you don't mind I'm asking...

Have you seen the Genesis Conflict series by Dr. Walter Veith?

Click to expand...

Hi back OntheDL,

Answer to question #1.
I'm a vo-tech teacher in Bartlesville Oklahoma. This is my 21st year to teach. I have a biology/chemistry background in school.

question #2
No.

I have read extensively on creation science research including some stuff from Loma Linda's geology dept. A very good book that explains a lot of this is "In the beginning, compelling evidence for creation and the flood" by Dr. Walter Brown. I have spoke to Dr. Brown personally on one occasion. He is a ex-mechanical engineering professor at MIT and was at one time an agnostic as I was. The mainstream paradigm paints a totatlly different picture than what All the evidence does.

BTW, I came to the conclusion that the flood was literal long before I started reading the Bible or research books. I came to that conclusion from doing field research on my own.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

RC_NewProtestants said:

Jim your use of the previous centuries word Uniformitarians indicates that you have not kept up to well with the geological Research. Most Geologists accept catastrophism as much as you do. Now it is true they don't think things happened as fast as you do. Things like Glacial polish and cirques took a bit of time, as did carving the Grand Canyon. Even the situation that enables fossils to be preserved is not the usual situation.

Click to expand...

Uniformitarianism is still alive and well in geology my friend. Glacial polish is no harder to explain than slick-in-sides tangentially located on a few rock formations. All of this is completely compatible with a global catastropy. The funny things are the lack of explanation for some of these things on structures like overthrusts etc. Most of the stratification we see in the grand canyon was formed during the flood by the actions of massive waves and liquifaction but the main canyon or ditch part of it was most likely formed by the rush of water from a huge lake left over by the flood. The petrified forest was made this way as well.

BTW, in some of the petrified forest logs have been found petrified bee hives. Initially, they thought these logs were older than the time for insects to have evoled, Opps

As for the Arctic there was once a time when the earth had a totally different axis, those things in the arctic were growing there, not merely carried there by some flood which randomly deposited things.

Click to expand...

Wow, you finally got one thing right. The axis of the earth was changed dramatically when the subterranean waters came up at the time of the flood and created a sudden mass shift causing the planet to roll about 75 or 80 degrees. So where the arctic is now used to be much warmer and tropical. You missed the boat on the way they got buried though. Again, evidence shows that they were rapidly buried by hydrological forces. Theres not evidence they grew in place where they were found. Wooly mammoths and rhinos were frozen so quickly that some were found with food still in their mouths.

Of course you don't believe the flood water's randomly deposited or you would see a tremendous problem in the white cliffs of Dover and the hundreds of feet thick Limestone deposits. Speaking of drilling in the ice how do you account for well over a hundred thousand years of ice layers in the core samples?

Click to expand...

The white cliffs of Dover make a good case for the flood. Pure chalk is impossible in slow accumulation scenarios. As a matter of fact pure anything is impossible in slow accumulation scenarios.
The layering you say represent over a hundred thousand years of accumulation is easy to explain if you understand the concept of how stratified laminations occurr to start with. Some folks (mainstream scienctist ) think that each little layer was deposited one on top of the other slowly. However, we know this can be done with ice or rock very rapidly if you produce the right conditions for it to happen i.e. dynamic wave action and liquifaction.

Polystrate fossils put a dagger in the heart of slow accumulation geology. Intack trees several feet long are covered with and pass vertically thru supposedly billions of years of stratified layers of successive formations. The tree had to be put there rapidly and the layers formed around it rapidly. Slow accumulation would have the tree rot away long before the first layer was deposited.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

djconklin said:

Thanks for the great info Jim!

Do you know of any web sites that show the layers of "rock" surrounding tree trunks?

Click to expand...

A good way to do that is to do a google on polystrate fossils and see what pops up. There's a lot of them out there website wise and there are a lot of polystrate fossils in the geological column.

Recently on the time scale of geology we had a lot of polystrates made in the lahar created during the eruption of Mt.St. Helens. This was also a great time to see how multiple layers of stratified sediments are made. You can go to that area right now and see polystrated trees with multiple stratified layers around them as they were washed into place by the lahar.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

RC_NewProtestants said:

Ok so you aren't listening too well, Geology does not say there there were no catostrophic events, that is the straw man which you keep using yet it is not true which was why I mentioned it. Nor do they dismiss the idea of global catastrophy, such as the change in earth's axis or the results of meteor impacts, remember the rather famous theory of how dinasours died out? So please stop this false idea that geology does not support catstophism.

Click to expand...

We probably need to move this discussion to a separate thread dedicated to the flood or creationists geology. I have debated this many times with atheists and agnostics. You will obviously align yourself with that group. To address what you have said in this quote above the mainstream geologists put the flooding type of catastrophy on a local basis and not global. Additionally, they refuse to consider the evidence that supports a rapid formation of the geological column. The way I see this as one adventists talking to another is you may just as well go ahead and call the Bible and it's author a liar as you call into question basic fundamental truths the Bible gives us.

You would think they would have drowned then rather then being quick frozen, there is really no way to put those frozen mammoths as the result of the flood.

Click to expand...

Dr. Walter Brown is a Ph.D mechanical engineer with extensive research on the flood. He says that the fountains of the great deep erupted with such force that a lot of the water may have gotten blasted into orbit and beyond. Lower orbiting water coming back could have been near absolute zero ( the temperature of space ). This could have frozen these animals this quickly as it buried them. All of these animals that are found like this were buried. Some of these animals also show evidence of being suffocated. Brown seems to think the atmosphere could have been temporarily moved away as the planet made a huge roll. Gas has inertia as does solid mass and could have been pulled back for a short time exposing the surface to very low temperatures and suffocating these animals at the same time.

Yea, that makes sense a whole world under water which kills all these little plankton guys and piles them up in one place without the impurities like clay which is found in the other limestones. You have got to be joking, water does not function that way, it takes whatever is there and carries it, why do you assume that the flood would deposit these organisms in this one place rather then a layer over the whole world? Or at least a larger area.

Click to expand...

Chalk and lime formations are not soley produced by animals who form it in their shells and then die. The concentration of CaCO3 can become high enough to cause precipitation of this mineral out of solution. When this is done on the level we see happening during the flood we get very large deposits of pure mineral. Obviously the massive amounts of lime was brought up from the chambers surrounding the fountains of the great deep. The evidence points to the massive deposits like the white cliffs of Dover being placed there by castastrophic hydrological forces.

We can look at what slow accumulation looks like and there is a vast difference. Pure lime deposits have very little or no evidence of animal shells or skeletal remains and are huge and deep. Whereas slow accumulation deposits are thin and are heterogenous or mixed up with other minerals and they are primarily ground up animal shells. Chalk is lime that is ground up so fine that it's similar to taulkum powder and would have to had been ground that small by some great forces. As the pieces get smaller the force required to make it smaller increases. Chalk was not produced by animals or grinding forces we see on the surface. The majority of it is the product of precipitation on a massive basis and transported there by huge currents.

Some creationist have done calculations on the amount of lime that we have all over our planet and there hasn't been enough time according to the mainstream paradigm to produce the vast amount of lime we have on the planet. Additionally, the chemistry is not right for the way it's being produced by animals. The concentration of lime in the oceans could not have produced the mass we see. Chemicals in solution seek equilibrium so if things have been the same in the distant past as they are now the oceans could not have produced these deposits.

In any case I mentioned the age of the ice core samples what is your excuse for those?

Click to expand...

I've already addressed that. Ice can layer like that very rapidly. They have multiple laying of ice that would show age wise to be up to 20,000 years old, that have been produced in less than 10 years. What they do is make assumptions based on what happens in some documented cases. You have to look at and consider all the evidence. Mainstream science does not want to really do that because if they did they would have to re-think most of their theories. Lake varves are another layering phenomenon that is easily explained by what happens dynamically with water.

Not really but their theories are still just that theories for an unusal situation, but that does not make the flood theory work any better.
see Joggins fossiles http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=6690
Or see the following for an explaination of how this issue is not what the young earth creationists pretend it is.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Click to expand...

These explanations show how far the human mind can go to rationalize away solid evidence so they can hang onto their precious theories. To the untrained mind they can be very convincing and sound reasonable. The polystrates I have seen were uncovered by a mixed team of geologists and creationist. They were going along and talking about the age of this column and that column etc. then when they uncovered the polystrate they just got very quiet. When asked how they could explain this phenomenon they just stood there dumb-founded. Polystrates are irrefuteble evidence that formations had to form rapidly not by slow accumulation. BTW, talkorigins is a atheistic site dedicated to refuting anything that has to do with the flood/God/intelligent design or the Bible.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

RC_NewProtestants said:

the problem is not anything you gave is solid evidence. It is mere speculation that such things as the water shot out so far from the earth as to be absolute zero (which is not even possible for water which forms a solid at below 32 degrees f / 0 Celsius [SIZE=-1]On the Celsius scale, absolute zero corresponds to a temperature of -273º [/SIZE]).

Click to expand...

Obviously you know nothing about super cooled water then. Speculations? Sure they are but they are based on good and probably scenarios that fit the latent evidence. No one alive now ( human wise anyway ) was there so this is what every one has to do is speculation. We do know in order to preserve the food in the mouth's of these animals that they would had to have been exposed to nearly that cold and almost instantly frozen. There's no way to do that here on earth unless you dropped them in liquid nitrogen. I don't think they had that available back then but who knows that is a speculative remark as well.

but even if you assumed that and your global flood then those animals would be in liquid water for at least the 40 days. The point is you have speculations which are totally speculations even if you choose to accept the Genesis account as totally literal.

Click to expand...

If they got encased in ice before the flood waters came they would be protected from it. The eruption of the fountains of the great deep followed a chain reaction of fractures starting presumably in what we call the mid-atlantic ridge. These fountains ripped open kind of like a giant zipper traversing the planet. As a matter of fact these sub-oceanic ridges ( all over the world ) are good solid evidence of the exit sites of these great fountains.

Anyway, the waters of the flood took a while to reach all parts of the earth and during this time some of the waters that got shot up could have come down encasing these animals after they froze in place by being exposed to the temperature of space when the planet rolled over. Additionally, the water flowing up there would be frozen rapidly as it arrived in huge waves causing some lensing effect making layers by liquifaction, that is how we find fresh palms at a thousand feet down. If they had been buried in sediments they would have fossilized but being frozen protected them keeping them fresh.

By the way why do want to discount talk origins when you frequently go to the young earth creationists? I am quite sure the story you told is from a Creationist book and remember your accepted theory of how they formed is no more established then is the theory of sinking and salt migration. So to say it is irrefutable merely means you won't listen to explanations of people involved in the sciences and you would rather call them untrained minds.

Click to expand...

I have been reading talkorigins for years hoping I can find some good stuff there. If you want to find the real truth you don't go to those who refuse to look at all the evidence. That is the bottom line.

As far as polystrates go I accept what has been shown to cause polystrates in our own time like the lahar during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Salt migration has never been shown to preserve wood fiber for 5 million years as the sediments slowly accumulate around the tree or limb. BTW, we also find polystrates in animal fossils like whales and dinos. I think you need to get realistic and use common sense. As far as sinking goes we have ways to determine if that has happened or not and to my knowledge on all the polystrates I've studied that wasn't considered as a viable option for explanation. Certainly we haven't observed sinking like that to produce polystrates.

The Bible does not have to be considered to be written by liars because someone said the world is set upon pillars or because they don't understand how creation could have happened or what stars are or because they told or modified other myths to teach moral things. All you have to do is leave behind the wooden literalism that infects fundamentalism.

Click to expand...

If what you mean by wooden literalism is that I accept that creation happened in 7 literal days or that the flood was world wide or that all scripture is the inspired word of God then I'm about as woodenly literal as you can get.

God Bless
Jim Larmore