River Channels in the Geologic Column Disprove Global Flood

[grmorton]

Does not water flow were it is least resistant, escpecialy if it is moveing fast. So if this spot had loose soile from say a crack from an earth quake or some tyope of thing like it that would soften this route, then if water were to flow down this area would it not go over this loose dirt or substance and wash it out creating a channel. just wondering. Geology to me is the hardest to explain and understand for me. As in disproving an old Earth.

Are you aware that pressure increases as one goes into the earth? Are you aware that water flows from high pressure regions towards low pressure regions with one exception, when the flow must go up hill. In that case the force of gravity comes into play and stops the up hill flow. Thus, water can't flow into a crack and then underground IN SANDSTONE AND SHALE, which is where these channels are found. The reason is that the pressure of the water underground is higher than the pressure of the water on the earth's surface.


Here is an experiment you can do. The river channels in the geologic column are found in sandstone and shale strata. Take a garden hose and a pile of dry sand. Turn on the hose and stick it into the base of the sand pile. See if you can form a channel in that sand pile. I dare you to try this very simple experiment. What you will do is wash away the sand pile and NEVER form a river channel.


Secondly, even if you could get the water to go into the ground in the way you describe, the sand must be removed from the channel and it must be replaced by shale (or vice versa). The only reason we see these channels is that the channel contains an opposite lithology to the surrounding rock and that creates an ability for sound to reflect off the channel. If the channel was sand and the surrounding rock was sand, we would get no sound reflection off the channel and wouldn't see it.

As for the rest its hard to say who is right and who is wrong.

No, it is not hard. It does take some study, some thinking and some logical deduction. But it isn't hard at all.

Mans wisdom only goes so far. We may be interpreting some of science really wrong and not no it. We must assume a lot of things so its hard to be certain about anything except what we no to be true from a spiritual point when it goes with the word of God. This may not be very well put but i Tried.

Maybe we christians are reading the Bible wrong? It always amazes me that the only thing YECs think we are reading wrong is the science. They are so skeptical of science but never skeptical of their own methods, yet they should be. Why is our reading of scripture so automatically unquestionable when we are mere humans?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Are you aware that pressure increases as one goes into the earth? Are you aware that water flows from high pressure regions towards low pressure regions with one exception, when the flow must go up hill. In that case the force of gravity comes into play and stops the up hill flow. Thus, water can't flow into a crack and then underground IN SANDSTONE AND SHALE, which is where these channels are found. The reason is that the pressure of the water underground is higher than the pressure of the water on the earth's surface.


Here is an experiment you can do. The river channels in the geologic column are found in sandstone and shale strata. Take a garden hose and a pile of dry sand. Turn on the hose and stick it into the base of the sand pile. See if you can form a channel in that sand pile. I dare you to try this very simple experiment. What you will do is wash away the sand pile and NEVER form a river channel.


Secondly, even if you could get the water to go into the ground in the way you describe, the sand must be removed from the channel and it must be replaced by shale (or vice versa). The only reason we see these channels is that the channel contains an opposite lithology to the surrounding rock and that creates an ability for sound to reflect off the channel. If the channel was sand and the surrounding rock was sand, we would get no sound reflection off the channel and wouldn't see it.

I dont see how this answered my question. I asked if water could form a channel if there was a crack full of debris from a earthquake or such thing. And if water went over it would it not clear out this debris. I was not talking about what type of rock or soil or what ever it could be anything.

No, it is not hard. It does take some study, some thinking and some logical deduction. But it isn't hard at all.



Maybe we christians are reading the Bible wrong? It always amazes me that the only thing YECs think we are reading wrong is the science. They are so skeptical of science but never skeptical of their own methods, yet they should be. Why is our reading of scripture so automatically unquestionable when we are mere humans?

It is hard to some if they have to study a whole new topic of info. We christians do read the bible wrong its very evident in this forum that that is true. What is unquestionable is the Bible being true as stated and written. If he is omnipatent, then he could certainly make sure what was written was written correctly. If you read Genesis the first chapters the word Day used in hebrews is deffinitly one day(evening and morning) Yom I believe is the word, do a study on it. So it is true that it was Six literal days or God is not so powerful and very deceptive. Science is based on mans wisdom which is not perfect and therefore can be questioned as accurate. So yes you could be reading it all wrong, or is science perfect, i doubt it since things about it change all the time. We have not been studing it for all that long. I cant question your Salvation because no one can know except God. you say your a christian thats good and I hope you are blessed for it.

 

[gluadys]

What is unquestionable is the Bible being true as stated and written. If he is omnipatent, then he could certainly make sure what was written was written correctly.

But nobody here is arguing that the Bible is written incorrectly. We all agree the bible is written as God intended it to be written, and that is correctly.

We are only saying that it is not always correct to assume a literal interpretation. Especially if that is NOT what God intended.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

But nobody here is arguing that the Bible is written incorrectly. We all agree the bible is written as God intended it to be written, and that is correctly.

We are only saying that it is not always correct to assume a literal interpretation. Especially if that is NOT what God intended.

If you agree with this then why did he say yom in genesis about a day. It is the singular form of it meaning it was evening and morning the first day(YOM) the pl;uar form is used alot in other passages and it refers to many days or seasons ect. If he meant this he would of used this form. study it. Im not a hebrew scholor so i cant go into detail but i looked it up and that is what was used. No it is not good to use a literal interpretation in all of the Bible, thats why you study what is being said in what is going on at the time, and study what the hebrew word used is. its hard to translate many hebrew words into english because we just dont have a good language. That why im bad in english and grammmer God did not intend it to say anything but to point to Christ as our saviour. Taking it to literal makes it legalism and to liberal to saying we can do what we like because we are saved by grace.

 

[grmorton]

I dont see how this answered my question. I asked if water could form a channel if there was a crack full of debris from a earthquake or such thing. And if water went over it would it not clear out this debris. I was not talking about what type of rock or soil or what ever it could be anything.

Then the answer to your question is simply NO. I doubt that you will like this answer but it is no, nyet, bu in whatever language you choose.

It is hard to some if they have to study a whole new topic of info. We christians do read the bible wrong its very evident in this forum that that is true. What is unquestionable is the Bible being true as stated and written. If he is omnipatent, then he could certainly make sure what was written was written correctly. If you read Genesis the first chapters the word Day used in hebrews is deffinitly one day(evening and morning) Yom I believe is the word, do a study on it. So it is true that it was Six literal days or God is not so powerful and very deceptive. Science is based on mans wisdom which is not perfect and therefore can be questioned as accurate. So yes you could be reading it all wrong, or is science perfect, i doubt it since things about it change all the time. We have not been studing it for all that long. I cant question your Salvation because no one can know except God. you say your a christian thats good and I hope you are blessed for it.

Yes, God could write it in a fashion in which it is true. I believe he did. But if that is the case, the widespread interpretation isn't the one which will work. That means, that maybe we should be less certain that we 20th century people are the ones who have understood the text.

 

[JohnR7]

My position is that, as interesting as the meaning of "erets" is, this all becomes moot if the story was not meant to be read as literal history!

If you do not have a chance to attend a Bible college then you may want to study up on how to interpert the Bible. I am sure you can find some very good information about that on the internet. The way the Bible is written is that there are real people and real storys. That is why archeology can go to Jericho and find the walls that came tumbling down. These things really happened. But they also have a symbolic meaning. We refer to them as shaddows and types. They are object lessons that we can learn from.

People that say the Bible is not a historic book reminds me very much of YEC's saying the earth is 6000 years old. YEC's that say the earth is only 6000 years old just do not know enough about science or they would see that the earth is a lot older than that. People that say the Bible is not a literal historical book just have not read their Bible enough to know it well enough to see that is is a literal historical book. Or if they have read it they are not following the standard guidelines for interpretation.

 

[JohnR7]

If you read Genesis the first chapters the word Day used in hebrews is deffinitly one day(evening and morning) Yom I believe is the word, do a study on it.

A day is from evening to evening or from morning to morning. If you are talking about a evening AND a morning, then you are talking about a end and a beginning. This is a referance to a period of time which we are told is 1000 years in length.

The Hebrew word for day is yown. Adam and Eve were told that on the DAY they ate from the forbidden tree they would die. We know that it was almost 1000 years before Adam died, but it was on that day, because 1000 years had not passed yet.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

A day is from evening to evening or from morning to morning. If you are talking about a evening AND a morning, then you are talking about a end and a beginning. This is a referance to a period of time which we are told is 1000 years in length.

The Hebrew word for day is yown. Adam and Eve were told that on the DAY they ate from the forbidden tree they would die. We know that it was almost 1000 years before Adam died, but it was on that day, because 1000 years had not passed yet.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

yown is the pluare form is it not what is the hebrew word in genesis 1:5-the first day.

 

[JohnR7]

yown is the pluare form is it not what is the hebrew word in genesis 1:5-the first day.

The Hebrew word for day in Gen 1:5 is Yowm, the same word we see in Gen 5:4 where Yowm represents a period of time that is at least 800 years in length.

Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Sometimes you see the word Kol used before the word Yown, meaning ALL the DAYS. But in Gen 5:4 you do NOT see the word Kol.

The only way God could have done it in a literal day would be to create everything fully grown. In order to grow a tree you have to plant a seed and it takes times. That is why 1000 year days are much more logical.

 

[Vance]

If you do not have a chance to attend a Bible college then you may want to study up on how to interpert the Bible. I am sure you can find some very good information about that on the internet. The way the Bible is written is that there are real people and real storys. That is why archeology can go to Jericho and find the walls that came tumbling down. These things really happened. But they also have a symbolic meaning. We refer to them as shaddows and types. They are object lessons that we can learn from.

People that say the Bible is not a historic book reminds me very much of YEC's saying the earth is 6000 years old. YEC's that say the earth is only 6000 years old just do not know enough about science or they would see that the earth is a lot older than that. People that say the Bible is not a literal historical book just have not read their Bible enough to know it well enough to see that is is a literal historical book. Or if they have read it they are not following the standard guidelines for interpretation.

John, I nearly spit up my coffee when I read that first line!! I can assure you, without any possibility of doubt, that I have read more on Biblical interpretation and the various methods of exegesis than just about anyone on these forums, except maybe Herev and rwilliamsII and Gluadys. My father did go to seminary at Southern California College, now Vanguard University, and I not only was taught by him from the pulpit and at home, but I attended evangelical Christian schools, with required Biblical studies courses. Since then, I have taken numerous studies at university and elsewhere, on ancient literature and the study of the Bible. My BA is in ancient history.

I agree completely that there are many historical narratives in Scripture, and consider myself a maximalist, not a minimalist. That has nothing to do with my reading of of the early chapters of Genesis. You recognize, I am sure, that there ARE texts in Scripture that are not meant to be read literally, even evangelicals debate over texts like Job and Song of Solomon, and the Jewish scholars have long wondered whether Esther was historical. I think that Genesis falls even further on the side of "not likely historical" for a wide variety of reasons, both Scripturally, and based on cultural, historical and literary evidence.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

The Hebrew word for day in Gen 1:5 is Yowm, the same word we see in Gen 5:4 where Yowm represents a period of time that is at least 800 years in length.

Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Sometimes you see the word Kol used before the word Yown, meaning ALL the DAYS. But in Gen 5:4 you do NOT see the word Kol.

The only way God could have done it in a literal day would be to create everything fully grown. In order to grow a tree you have to plant a seed and it takes times. That is why 1000 year days are much more logical.

just curious where you got this from.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

Then the answer to your question is simply NO. I doubt that you will like this answer but it is no, nyet, bu in whatever language you choose.

your right i do not except it. Why not, if i make a model to this effect it would wash it all out and leave a channel. If there was land before noah which there was and it split up and divided and there were a lot of earthquakes it is possible to have this happen. or at the least crack fill in with dirt or rubble and then if a flood came it could wash it out. Or maybe I'm way off.

Yes, God could write it in a fashion in which it is true. I believe he did. But if that is the case, the widespread interpretation isn't the one which will work. That means, that maybe we should be less certain that we 20th century people are the ones who have understood the text.

Axcually i think we would be the ones to interpret it right. Since it says that we would. It says that knowleldge would increase in the earth the last days, also it says that Danial was to lock it up(what he wrote abnout the end times) and that it will be understood later. Or to that effect. It also says the scriptures were written to show the coming of Christ by Paul. The people writing it didnt think so and the early jews didnt recognize it either, it wasnt untill God revealed it to the Apostles through Christ and revalation.

 

[grmorton]

your right i do not except it. Why not, if i make a model to this effect it would wash it all out and leave a channel. If there was land before noah which there was and it split up and divided and there were a lot of earthquakes it is possible to have this happen. or at the least crack fill in with dirt or rubble and then if a flood came it could wash it out. Or maybe I'm way off.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your model. As I understand it you want the sediment to be deposited and then water to go down under the ground and wash a channel into the sediments. If that is what you are proposing, then you are simply wrong whether you ever accept it or not.

Axcually i think we would be the ones to interpret it right. Since it says that we would. It says that knowleldge would increase in the earth the last days, also it says that Danial was to lock it up(what he wrote abnout the end times) and that it will be understood later. Or to that effect. It also says the scriptures were written to show the coming of Christ by Paul. The people writing it didnt think so and the early jews didnt recognize it either, it wasnt untill God revealed it to the Apostles through Christ and revalation.

THat has nothing whatsoever to do with the flood or river channels in the geologic record.

 

[JohnR7]

just curious where you got this from.

From Strong's concordance. My Bible program has a Strongs concordance built into it. If you want you can go to http://bible.crosswalk.com/ they have a lot of referance material available online.

It is a lot faster now with computers to search our Bible, than what it use to be before computers when we use to have to use the printed version of strongs.

 

[JohnR7]

We are only saying that it is not always correct to assume a literal interpretation.

The problem is not with a literal interpretation. The problem is with what Peter calls a "private interpretation".

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[gluadys]

The problem is not with a literal interpretation. The problem is with what Peter calls a "private interpretation".

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And when we, as individuals, do not have a personal revelation from the Spirit, then we have to figure out what interpretations are permitted through careful and prayerful study with each other.

Nothing I have presented is a private interpretation, but rather interpretations which are well accepted in our tradition. We do not believe in private interpretations and have a whole system of church government and teaching that mitigates against it.

I have just completed a three-year project of pulling together many of the statements of our church on ethical, social & environmental questions running the gamut from euthanasia to gambling to climate change to the role of women in the church. I read over 50 year's worth of debate on these and many other issues and I have attended General Assembly for nearly 10 of those years.

To me, it is an amazing thing to see a whole instititution come around to a new way of understanding what the Spirit is saying through the scriptures. Sometimes it takes one General Assembly. Sometimes it takes 10-15 years of agonizing debate to break down entrenched attitudes. But when it happens, it happens and one can simply feel the Spirit moving irresistably through the Assembly. Private interpretation? No way!

 

[JohnR7]

even evangelicals debate over texts like Job and Song of Solomon

I have never heard of any debate that would suggest that Job and Solomon were not real historical people.

 

[Vance]

My gosh, even Calvin said he doubted Job was literal history. Go back into that Bible book store and pick up ten books about Job. I bet 1/3 to 1/2 will conclude that we just don't know whether it is meant to be historical or not.

As for Solomon, I am not talking about Solomon, but the Song of Solomon. Some read this literally, as an erotic love poem. Some read it figuratively, as referring to Christ and the Church. Some play it safe and say it must be both. The point with SoS is that there is NO indication anywhere that it should be read figuratively, but people do it all the time. ESPECIALLY Evangelicals.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

My gosh, even Calvin said he doubted Job was literal history. Go back into that Bible book store and pick up ten books about Job. I bet 1/3 to 1/2 will conclude that we just don't know whether it is meant to be historical or not.

As for Solomon, I am not talking about Solomon, but the Song of Solomon. Some read this literally, as an erotic love poem. Some read it figuratively, as referring to Christ and the Church. Some play it safe and say it must be both. The point with SoS is that there is NO indication anywhere that it should be read figuratively, but people do it all the time. ESPECIALLY Evangelicals.

Is Calvin a Angel of the lord or a Prophet of the Lord. He is just a man with a opinion as you and me. So any one can do what ever interpretation they want, it my fit there life style or it my be the truth. if it fits with the rest of the Bible then it is usually right. Always remember that there are two spirits at work in our lives and in the world. So it is not unrealistic for whole groups of people to interprate something wrong. All you have to do is look at all the liberal churches and denominations that run from world wide denominations to just one church congragation.

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

And when we, as individuals, do not have a personal revelation from the Spirit, then we have to figure out what interpretations are permitted through careful and prayerful study with each other.

Nothing I have presented is a private interpretation, but rather interpretations which are well accepted in our tradition. We do not believe in private interpretations and have a whole system of church government and teaching that mitigates against it.

I have just completed a three-year project of pulling together many of the statements of our church on ethical, social & environmental questions running the gamut from euthanasia to gambling to climate change to the role of women in the church. I read over 50 year's worth of debate on these and many other issues and I have attended General Assembly for nearly 10 of those years.

To me, it is an amazing thing to see a whole instititution come around to a new way of understanding what the Spirit is saying through the scriptures. Sometimes it takes one General Assembly. Sometimes it takes 10-15 years of agonizing debate to break down entrenched attitudes. But when it happens, it happens and one can simply feel the Spirit moving irresistably through the Assembly. Private interpretation? No way!

What spirit is saying what. It may be ten years of wonderful work of the devil that turns a institution into reading the Word wrong. I'm not saying this is the case for your assembly, but that it is very possible and happens more now then before. I have seen it in the Quaker movement that some have gone way beyond Gods word. It used to be difficult to get in the churches no it is very easy. I refering to believing one is saved, one must only say they believe in Jesus and not run a life that shows it. LIBERALISM. As in saved by Grace so i can live as i wish as long as I'm not to bad a person or as long as i do enough good works.