Science and Noahs flood are a good match.

[duordi]

Let me lay the main points of current Earth geological information.

1. The world is covered with sediment rock which was created under water.

2. The world has a continental shelf. At the continental shelf line there are deltas which are sediment distributions caused by rivers. The continental shelf is an old water line. Which is presently about 600 feet below sea level.

3. Antarctica (the north pole) has tropical fossils.

Evolutionary theory accounts for this data as follows:

A. Ice ages caused all sea water level changes. This accounts for the continental shelf. Ice ages occurred many times over great expanses in time.

B. Plate tectonics cause mountains to rise, very slowly of course, out of the ocean. This accounts for the consistent sedimentary rock deposits.

C. The contentions move around the earth, very slowly. The polar region came from a warmer climate closer to the equator accounting for tropical fossils at the poles. The oil coal and natural gas deposits were deposited over long periods of time and were gathered by penetrating layers of soil until they reached a common layer which was not permeable.

A catastrophic flood theory would account for this same information as follows.
(Note: this theory is typically thought of as having religious roots because of the consistency of aspects of a flood story in the history most ancient civilizations.)

A. The atmosphere once contained a greater amount of water vapor causing a greenhouse affect. The entire earth had tropical weather which accounts for the tropical fossils at the poles.

B. A more perfect environment and the absence of mountains caused the earth to have more consistent watering supporting large qualities of animal and vegetation . The vegetation and animals were washed into low areas by the world flood and covered quickly preserving them and causing large oil coal and natural gas fields.

C. The continents which are floating on a liquid molten rock mantel are lighter than water and the continents floated or rose out of the ocean enough (in a year and a half by Noah's account) to allow dry land to appear. The loss of the green house canopy caused ice to form at the poles.

Notice that the only major difference between these theories is the length of time involved.

Recent information regarding meteor crater patterns have shown the catastrophic theory to be a better fit to the geological evidence and also indicate the current dating methods to be more random then accurate.

 

[gluadys]

Let me lay the main points of current Earth geological information.

1. The world is covered with sediment rock which was created under water.

2. The world has a continental shelf. At the continental shelf line there are deltas which are sediment distributions caused by rivers. The continental shelf is an old water line. Which is presently about 600 feet below sea level.

3. Antarctica (the north pole) has tropical fossils.

I hope this is a typo. The north pole is in the Arctic Ocean. It is the south pole that is in Antarctica. (At least until we have another reversal of the earth's magnetic field.)

A catastrophic flood theory would account for this same information as follows.
(Note: this theory is typically thought of as having religious roots because of the consistency of aspects of a flood story in the history most ancient civilizations.)

A. The atmosphere once contained a greater amount of water vapor causing a greenhouse affect. The entire earth had tropical weather which accounts for the tropical fossils at the poles.

I am glad you realize that water vapour in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. This puts a maximum limit on how much water vapour can be in the atmosphere and still maintain a habitable planet. Too much water vapour would produce much more than a tropical climate; it would produce steam effect that would cook all life off the surface of the earth and boil what was in the oceans. Can the atmosphere contain sufficient water to account for a global deluge without such effects? (You will need some math for this, but I have heard that the amount of water vapour needed in such a canopy would raise the surface temperature of the earth enough to boil lead.)

B. A more perfect environment and the absence of mountains caused the earth to have more consistent watering supporting large qualities of animal and vegetation .

"More perfect" for whom? A tropical climate is not more perfect for polar bears, nor is a flatter planet more perfect for mountain goats. Recently I heard a lecture about the ocean in which the speaker mentioned that in the last 20-25 years many species of oceanic plankton which used to be common in the area of the Mediterranean sea have migrated to the latitude of the English channel. This is due to the rising temperature of the ocean under current global warming. Those species of plankton were looking for cooler waters because a tropical environment is far from perfect for them.

The vegetation and animals were washed into low areas by the world flood and covered quickly preserving them and causing large oil coal and natural gas fields.

This would produce a fossil record that is very different from the one that actually exists.

C. The continents which are floating on a liquid molten rock mantel are lighter than water and the continents floated or rose out of the ocean enough (in a year and a half by Noah's account) to allow dry land to appear.

The rate of such uplift can be measured very accurately. Scientists today are measuring the yearly rate by which the Himalayas are increasing in height. It is a small fraction of an inch. And the rate at which Labrador is still rising since the glaciers of the last ice age melted 10,000 years ago.

Plate tectonics does not allow for whole continents to reappear in just one year without catastrophic effects that would cause as much or more additional destruction as a global flood would in the first place. It would be centuries before life could re-establish itself.

 

[KerrMetric]

A catastrophic flood theory would account for this same information as follows.
(Note: this theory is typically thought of as having religious roots because of the consistency of aspects of a flood story in the history most ancient civilizations.)

A. The atmosphere once contained a greater amount of water vapor causing a greenhouse affect. The entire earth had tropical weather which accounts for the tropical fossils at the poles.

B. A more perfect environment and the absence of mountains caused the earth to have more consistent watering supporting large qualities of animal and vegetation . The vegetation and animals were washed into low areas by the world flood and covered quickly preserving them and causing large oil coal and natural gas fields.

C. The continents which are floating on a liquid molten rock mantel are lighter than water and the continents floated or rose out of the ocean enough (in a year and a half by Noah's account) to allow dry land to appear. The loss of the green house canopy caused ice to form at the poles.

Notice that the only major difference between these theories is the length of time involved.

Recent information regarding meteor crater patterns have shown the catastrophic theory to be a better fit to the geological evidence and also indicate the current dating methods to be more random then accurate.

Do you actually believe such hogwash? Or is it more the case you want to believe it for non-scientific reasons?

 

[juvenissun]

I am glad you realize that water vapour in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. This puts a maximum limit on how much water vapour can be in the atmosphere and still maintain a habitable planet. Too much water vapour would produce much more than a tropical climate; it would produce steam effect that would cook all life off the surface of the earth and boil what was in the oceans. Can the atmosphere contain sufficient water to account for a global deluge without such effects? (You will need some math for this, but I have heard that the amount of water vapour needed in such a canopy would raise the surface temperature of the earth enough to boil lead.)

Hi, gluadys.
My school started again.
One thing I learned (again) in the summer: Everything happened much faster (takes much less time) than we think it was. What's said in Rev 18: 16-17 is true to everything.

18:16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
18:17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

 

[solarwave]

A. The atmosphere once contained a greater amount of water vapor causing a greenhouse affect. The entire earth had tropical weather which accounts for the tropical fossils at the poles.

If the north and south poles had a tropical climate then how hot would the equator be? The answer is very, very, very hot.

B. A more perfect environment and the absence of mountains caused the earth to have more consistent watering supporting large qualities of animal and vegetation . The vegetation and animals were washed into low areas by the world flood and covered quickly preserving them and causing large oil coal and natural gas fields.

I think there is more to where rain falls then where mountains are.

C. The continents which are floating on a liquid molten rock mantel are lighter than water and the continents floated or rose out of the ocean enough (in a year and a half by Noah's account) to allow dry land to appear. The loss of the green house canopy caused ice to form at the poles.

Continents that are made of rock are lighter than water?

 

[duordi]

The overview was intended to give a general comparison of two theories. Detail was not intended for either theory for such a task could take a lifetime of research. I assume that the lack of response to the evolutionary overview indicates agreement with it generally.

Recent research of meteor craters has show a pattern which is highly unlikely if the meteors are random strikes separated by large passages of time.

I have attached a map file showing the impact craters for the world.
This information was gathered using scientific methods by an organization which holds to the evolutionary model.

You can visit the site “Earth Impact Database” if you wish to check it out yourself.
I have attached an enlarged image of Europe from the same site.
I added the lines to select two boxed areas to examine.

Although it is possible for this pattern you see to be caused by random strikes the odds against it can be calculated mathematically.

If you can not accept the oblivious visual indication then the math is as follows.

Suppose you have two equal areas on the surface of the Earth area #1 and area #2.
You can flip pennies (heads or tales) to see randomly where the meteor will hit on the Earth in Area#1 (heads) or Area#2 (tails).

The odds against getting 2 coins to land heads with no tales is ( 1 / 2 )^1 = 1 in 2.
The odds against getting 7 coins to land heads with no tales is ( 1 / 2 )^6 = 1 in 64.
The odds against getting 21 coins to land heads with no tales is ( 1 /2 )^20 = 1,048,567 to 1.

and so on.

The pattern indicates that the meteor strikes are not random but come from a common cause. This pattern is easily explained if the Earth encountered a meteor which broke up and caused multiple impacts.

This of course means that all of the meteor impacts must have the same date.

The dates of the craters were determined using common dating methods and are attached as the attached as three files.

The dates are not the same and this is not the fault of science but of the assumption used.
The dating methods used, assume the test material is not contaminated ( mixed or heated ).

If multiple meteor strikes did occur we should expect a lot of mixing causing the dates to be random.
The base assumption that the Earth went though a slow gradual process is no longer valid.

Judging by the perspective of the responses I received I anticipate a large amount of skepticism.

Fair enough.

I have another web sight which will generate a number of random locations on a map.

Google “ random” “point” “generator”. You will find a site which will allow you to generate random locations in our map box.

Type in the following information

Click the rectangular region tab and enter latitude longitude bounties:

70 N 40 N

0 E 60 E

There are 37 strikes on the map and two are outside our box so use 35 points on the upper right.

Now click “get random points” then click “see map”
Each time you click these two buttons you will get a new random distribution of locations.
They will not be evenly distributed and it may seem you almost did it!

Try and get all of the locations on one half of the box.
Just to make it fun you can draw a dividing straight line at any angle you wish as long as it divides the box in half.
If you get all of the points on one half of the box send me a picture.

But, each time you fail you have to say “ There was a catastrophic event and the radioactive dating methods do not work”.

 

[duordi]

I hope this is a typo. The north pole is in the Arctic Ocean. It is the south pole that is in Antarctica. (At least until we have another reversal of the earth's magnetic field.)

Yes, I have my poles switched.

I am glad you realize that water vapour in the atmosphere has a greenhouse effect. This puts a maximum limit on how much water vapour can be in the atmosphere and still maintain a habitable planet. Too much water vapour would produce much more than a tropical climate; it would produce steam effect that would cook all life off the surface of the earth and boil what was in the oceans. Can the atmosphere contain sufficient water to account for a global deluge without such effects? (You will need some math for this, but I have heard that the amount of water vapour needed in such a canopy would raise the surface temperature of the earth enough to boil lead.)

It depends on your assumptions.
If there was a catastrophic event then the earth could have lost a lot if its higher atmosphere which would make it louse its ability to hold the water it had. I think it would be hard to anticipate the effect of multiple large meteors.
I am not going to suggest I can explain what would happen and I would be very skeptical of anyone who said they could for sure.
General statements like "it would be real messy" that I could believe.

"More perfect" for whom? A tropical climate is not more perfect for polar bears, nor is a flatter planet more perfect for mountain goats. Recently I heard a lecture about the ocean in which the speaker mentioned that in the last 20-25 years many species of oceanic plankton which used to be common in the area of the Mediterranean sea have migrated to the latitude of the English channel. This is due to the rising temperature of the ocean under current global warming. Those species of plankton were looking for cooler waters because a tropical environment is far from perfect for them.

The mountain Goat, plankton and polar bears adapt because that is what life does. Are you suggesting that more rain forests are a bad thing?

The vegetation and animals were washed into low areas by the world flood and covered quickly preserving them and causing large oil coal and natural gas fields.

This would produce a fossil record that is very different from the one that actually exists.

Really? how so?

The rate of such uplift can be measured very accurately. Scientists today are measuring the yearly rate by which the Himalayas are increasing in height.

Yes but we are not in a catastrophic event.

It is a small fraction of an inch. And the rate at which Labrador is still rising since the glaciers of the last ice age melted 10,000 years ago.

The rate of rise would be dependent on the imbalance in buoyancy. That is why current measurements are not good indicators of what will happen in a catastrophic event.

Plate tectonics does not allow for whole continents to reappear in just one year-

How about 30 feet in a year and a half.

-without catastrophic effects that would cause as much or more additional destruction as a global flood would in the first place. It would be centuries before life could re-establish itself.

Well it depends on your perspective.
If you think there is no GOD or GOD doesn't care enough to lift a finger to help then it does look bleak.

On the other hand if there is a GOD who cares about us then it would seem that someone who is intelligent enough to create life could give enough direction to keep a few people alive.

Duane

 

[duordi]

And I don't mind discussing the science aspects.

So what is your perspective on the blood found in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone.

Do you think we should consider there is something wrong with the dating techniques or assume the blood lasted millions of years?

Duane

 

[KerrMetric]

Recent research of meteor craters has show a pattern which is highly unlikely if the meteors are random strikes separated by large passages of time.

.............

Although it is possible for this pattern you see to be caused by random strikes the odds against it can be calculated mathematically.

Let's see if you are willing to think here.

Try to come up with another reason why that distribution is perfectly plausible without recourse to tossing out dating methods. Think why you get a large number in Scandinavia and not in France/Spain or England?

 

[duordi]

If the north and south poles had a tropical climate then how hot would the equator be? The answer is very, very, very hot.

There are many different versions of the greenhouse theory.
Some version have it destroying the world ( Al Gore version ) others predict minimum temperature difference over the planet.

Actually warming trends in history have accompanied human prosperity because of increase in rainfall lengthening of growing cycles and temperature moderation.

I think there is more to where rain falls then where mountains are.

Of course there is but look at Google earth east of a mountain range, in North America or South America.
The clouds have to rise to go over the mountains and the elevation causes the clouds to drop most of their moisture on the other side of the mountain.
The result is a desert after the prevailing winds pass the mountains.

Continents that are made of rock are lighter than water?

I think it is the molten rock under the ocean is heaver then continents.
The water layer is a minor player.

If you were GOD would you make the World so it would be easy to explain you away or would you make it so it would be hard to explain you away?

Duane

 

[duordi]

We have Google Earth.

It is hard to believe we can miss a 10 mile wide crater when they can read my mail box number.

Do you really think the scientists are relying on the guy who is living there?

Actually when I first came across this I assumed that there was something in the area which was wiping away the evidence.

The dates of the rocks in the crater-less areas indicate they have been there millions of years, that is if you believe the dates of course.

Also understand these scientists really believe in the gradual change evolutionary theory just like you do.
These are not stupid people.
Do you think it maybe occurred to them this is not the results they wanted.
How hard do you think they looked for craters to round out the data?

Actually they are in a difficult position.
Do they tell the truth and risk lousing credibility (and funding) for suggesting something which does not support the common belief or hide the information.

A difficult decision indeed.

I am willing to look behind the curtain. Are you?

Duane

 

[KerrMetric]

Go back and look at your tables. The answer lies within. Well part of the answer anyway. The other part lies in the map itself.

 

[solarwave]

Let's see if you are willing to think here.

Try to come up with another reason why that distribution is perfectly plausible without recourse to tossing out dating methods. Think why you get a large number in Scandinavia and not in France/Spain or England?

Well I would be interested to hear what the explanation is away if could tell us.

There are many different versions of the greenhouse theory.
Some version have it destroying the world ( Al Gore version ) others predict minimum temperature difference over the planet.

Your saying that the temperatures of the world would level out to be more or less the same? So the pole would increase massively in temperature, but Africa would decrease or just stay the same? Why would that be the case it makes no sense?

Actually warming trends in history have accompanied human prosperity because of increase in rainfall lengthening of growing cycles and temperature moderation.

So Africa is more prosperous than Europe? There is a point where warm becomes too hot. Of course I know you know this.

Of course there is but look at Google earth east of a mountain range, in North America or South America.
The clouds have to rise to go over the mountains and the elevation causes the clouds to drop most of their moisture on the other side of the mountain.
The result is a desert after the prevailing winds pass the mountains.

I agree.

If you were GOD would you make the World so it would be easy to explain you away or would you make it so it would be hard to explain you away?

I don't know. Do you disagree with cosmology then because of the fact that we can't see heaven above us would seem to make it easier not to believe in God.

 

[gluadys]

It depends on your assumptions.
If there was a catastrophic event then the earth could have lost a lot if its higher atmosphere which would make it louse its ability to hold the water it had.

That would still mean there could not be any life on earth at all until after the catastrophe that reduced the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere to approximately what it is today. The catastrophe would have to take place first; creation second. So a flood within human history could not be related to any catastrophe that eliminated an amount of atmospheric water vapour inconsistent with the possibility of life in the first place.

The mountain Goat, plankton and polar bears adapt because that is what life does. Are you suggesting that more rain forests are a bad thing?

More rain forests are good for life forms that live in rain forests; they are bad for life forms that live in deserts, mountains, tundra, boreal forests, etc. No one environment is more perfect than another.

Really? how so?

Dozens of ways. The remains of flowering plants and their pollen would not be confined only to the upper layers of sediment. Trilobites would not be confined only to the lower sediments. Hydrologic sorting would assure that all heavier animals, such as dinosaurs and elephants would be in more or less the same level instead of separated by the K-T boundary. There would be no neat orderly appearance of different sorts of dominant forests (lyocopods followed by seed ferns followed by gynosperms followed by modern flowering trees). There would be no evidence of forests growing one on top of another. There would be no instances of aeolian erosion interspersed with water erosion. There would be no instances of burrow-formation on sea and lake bottoms during the period of flood sedimentation and no long sequences of varve formation.

The rate of such uplift can be measured very accurately. Scientists today are measuring the yearly rate by which the Himalayas are increasing in height.

Yes but we are not in a catastrophic event.

It is a small fraction of an inch. And the rate at which Labrador is still rising since the glaciers of the last ice age melted 10,000 years ago.

The rate of rise would be dependent on the imbalance in buoyancy. That is why current measurements are not good indicators of what will happen in a catastrophic event.

I didn't say these were catastrophic events; they are normal. The point is that when you leave the realm of the normal, you will have catastrophic consequences. And you will have evidence of those catastrophic consequences. You will have evidence that the earth was depopulated, not only of humans but of much other terrestrial life, for long centuries after the catastrophe. But, to the contrary, there is no evidence of such a gap in human history.

[/I]
Well it depends on your perspective.
If you think there is no GOD or GOD doesn't care enough to lift a finger to help then it does look bleak.

On the other hand if there is a GOD who cares about us then it would seem that someone who is intelligent enough to create life could give enough direction to keep a few people alive.

Science can't contemplate the consequences when miracles occur. If your point, as indicated in the thread title, is to claim a match between flood stories and science, you have to exclude miracles.

A miracle means ipso facto that there is no longer any match with science.

 

[duordi]

I guess I cannot prove to you that life survived the flood and if only eight survived out of billions we are very close to agreeing. I do not have enough information to prove to you that it could be done. At the same time you do not have enough information to prove it could not be done.


I will say this.


Not all of the water had to come from the sky. People assume all of the water came from the sky because they do not read the Bible. The fountains of the deep were said to be broken up also. I am not sure what that means but I think one carefully placed meteor could make a wave that would cover a continent rain or no rain.


As for the animals, if you could recreate the Garden of Eden on earth would you or would you prefer that things stay the same as they are now?


The Bibe says a day will come when “the lion will lay with the lamb and eat grass like an ox”. Desert habitats will be destroyed as the desert blooms with life. If you live to see it I hope it does not sadden you.


How can you say there is no record of a human gap in history? We have a written record of it. We know the Earth’s population was extremely small during the time of Noah.


There are many existing manmade objects on earth which could not have been made with the technology that was possessed in our recorded history so there must have been people before Noah who made them.


Regarding sicence and miracles.


Science predicts miracles will occur. If I calculate that it is a billion to one odds that someone will survive a catastrophic event on Earth what science is saying is that it is possible and in fact guarantees that sooner or later a miracle will happen. All I need is billions of people and a billion boats. ( Hay wait, I think we had that.)


Duane

 

[KerrMetric]

Figured out the explanation for your map/table?

 

[duordi]

The thing to remember about science is that the assumptions made are just as important as the technique used.

Evolution is a religion for some who follow it by faith not by facts.

That is why facts will never change a religious evolutionist mind. Instead the facts will be twisted and bent until they fit the mold desired.

Only the person who decides to search for the truth will find it and the respect for the truth must be more important than their belief.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Sure, the date mathods dont work because the assumptions were incorrect.

That is why the table shows different dates.

I am of course assuming you are going to give your opinion?
Duane

 

[duordi]

I guess I cannot prove to you that life survived the flood and if only eight survived out of billions we are very close to agreeing. I do not have enough information to prove to you that it could be done. At the same time you do not have enough information to prove it could not be done.


I will say this.


Not all of the water had to come from the sky. People assume all of the water came from the sky because they do not read the Bible. The fountains of the deep were said to be broken up also. I am not sure what that means but I think one carefully placed meteor could make a wave that would cover a continent rain or no rain.


As for the animals, if you could recreate the Garden of Eden on earth would you or would you prefer that things stay the same as they are now?


The Bibe says a day will come when “the lion will lay with the lamb and eat grass like an ox”. Desert habitats will be destroyed as the desert blooms with life. If you live to see it I hope it does not sadden you.


How can you say there is no record of a human gap in history? We have a written record of it. We know the Earth’s population was extremely small during the time of Noah.


There are many existing manmade objects on earth which could not have been made with the technology that was possessed in our recorded history so there must have been people before Noah who made them.


Regarding sicence and miracles.


Science predicts miracles will occur. If I calculate that it is a billion to one odds that someone will survive a catastrophic event on Earth what science is saying is that it is possible and in fact guarantees that sooner or later a miracle will happen. All I need is billions of people and a billion boats. ( Hay wait, I think we had that.

)


Duane

 

[KerrMetric]

Sure, the date mathods dont work because the assumptions were incorrect.

That is why the table shows different dates.

I am of course assuming you are going to give your opinion?
Duane

Actually the dating methods do work. But irrespective of that - I asked if you could think of a reason why that map made sense without throwing out the dates?