Scientific proof of flood.

[Phred]

Actually I have decided to put you on ignore due to your persistant harassment

It's not harrassment, but you'd like it to be. If you can manage to picture yourself standing against the vast "evil atheist conspiracy" you can pretend you're a martyr for Christ, which is your entire purpose in posting.

 

[duordi]

The title of this thread is the height of irony and hypocricy.

I wonder how many times threads such as these were followed by threads decrying science.

Scientific Proof of Flood.
Science is Worthless and Flawed.
Science is a Religion.
Science Requires Faith!

The basis of this statement deals with the indications of a water level erosion mark on mountain peak rock formations.

Both the flood and non-flood subscribers agree that this is the case.

The non-flood subscribers typically hold to the idea that the sediment was created and then the surface of the rock was raised to the present elevation by one contintial plate sliding over another.

So the question is could the present rock formations have been formed millions or billions of years ago and survived the rise to the present location and the erosion which would have taken place during that transition.

The title of the thread was based on this criteria showing that this is not possible and is sound from a scientific perspective.

Sorry for the delay in response.

Duane

 

[John16:2]

Scientific proof of flood.

Here is an overview of my assumptions and conclusions.

A picture is attached at the bottom


A large body of water that is decreasing in height will cause this erosion by wave action.

Erosion removes material based on its makeup at the location of the water surface wave action.

The surface water does most of the work and erosion at a level will depend on how long the water surface remained there.

As the water level recedes the surface water waves undercut the edges of the structure.

If the structure is capable of supporting its new form it may be a vertical cliff or even have a large top on a slender column.

Because the structure above the water level is not affected by water wave action, it may remain, being only affected by winds and rain.

Also the striking by waves causes tunnels to form if the surface remains at one level.

The wave will force itself into any holes that develop causing an impact at the back of the opening removing loose material at the end of the tunnel.

Tunnels require fairly large waves and indicate a large body of water.

The water must recede quickly enough to prevent the structure from being leveled at the water line.

Greater erosion at the bottom of a structure indicates that the water level receded slower at the bottom then at the top as the water was able to remove more material.

In erosion from wind and rain there is no intensification of erosion at a horizontal line



Intensive erosion at the base of a structure can also be caused by the material type.

If erosion layers are caused by material type, then where rock layers that are not level the erosion line would be sloped.

If the rock layers and the erosion line differ it is obviously a water line erosion.

Erosion caused by material differences does not cause extremely smooth erosion lines while water erosion lines are very smooth as they can cut into very hard rock.

The harder the rock the smoother and more defined a water cut is which can develop a polished appearance.

Wind and rain can of course obscure the smoothness of a water line and inspection inside caves is more reliable.

In water erosion all objects at a specific level would erode in a similar manner regardless of what they were made of and so another peak would have the same indications of water level progress distance.

In other words if one peak indicates a rapid 5' drop other structures in the area will also indicate the same condition as the water drop is not dependent on the material of the structure.

Different material types may cause the volume of material removed to be different.


The picture you have shown has a water line which can be seen pausing at several heights.

Tunneling is apparent but no grain in the stone is visible from this distance.

The water undercut is clearly visible on several of the columns.

Judging by the picture upper right the water level must have been fairly high.

Hmm... Looks like the top water line shown at the right would cover just about everything.

Drilling samples, or cutting the rock to expose its interior may give additional evidence that the rock properties do not change with the erosion depth but a visual inspection is adequate to indicate the conditions of formation.


Duane

Sounds like the Grand Canyon, it wasn't no stream did that! A great source of geologic evidence of the flood is Immanuel Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", citing sea fossils in Tibet and such. Check my thread ""New Earth" doctrine/1000 years/Pyramids/Myths.

 

[duordi]

Notto's comment

"Except for the ones that show intact terrestrial features such as footprints, in place tree root systems, seasonal layering of clay sediment.

How can we tell a fossil fuel deposit that is flood evidence from one that is not? You have already said that the ones with footprints must be from before the flood? What does one look like that is evidence of the flood? What features would it have? How can we distinguish it from pre-flood and post-flood deposits? Can you point us to a specific fossil fuel deposit that was created by the flood and explain how you know it was and that it wasn't one of the pre-flood deposits?
"

First I must apologize for my long recess. I did intend to follow it with I started it but summer is always a traveling time for me.

Response

There are several ways that this might be done all of which require assumptions which may or may not be true as valid specific data is difficult to determine with a catastrophic Earth model.

There is a layer in almost all areas of the global sediment layer which has a high level of radioactive materials.

This can be attributed to a very large meteor strike as is the case in the popular dinosaur extinction theory.

The radioactive content is typically associated with the material of the meteor in the extinction theories.

A catastrophic meteor strike fits well with the event of the flood so this sediment layer could be taken as a division of before and after flood sediments.

If the sediment layer which contained the radioactive material was not removed by erosion in the area in question a determination of pre or post flood date of a fossil or item could be determined.

Assuming all the above assumptions are correct of course.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Sounds like the Grand Canyon, it wasn't no stream did that! A great source of geologic evidence of the flood is Immanuel Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", citing sea fossils in Tibet and such. Check my thread ""New Earth" doctrine/1000 years/Pyramids/Myths.

Your time warp theory causes more problems then it solves in my opnion however my technical knowledge on time warps is very limited (as is the rest of the human race at this technological stage) but my basic knowledge of the principals involved would require enormous energy which is hard to imagine occurring without removing the Earth from orbit let alone atomization of the solar system.

Duane

 

[notto]

A catastrophic meteor strike fits well with the event of the flood so this sediment layer could be taken as a division of before and after flood sediments.

If the sediment layer which contained the radioactive material was not removed by erosion in the area in question a determination of pre or post flood date of a fossil or item could be determined.

Then we can assume that the flood happened millions of years ago and that the processes that led to the sedimentation and rock before the flood are what gave us the sediment and rock after the flood?

I don't see how there is any evidence at all that can be pointed to a flood or how this evidence fits well with the event of a flood.

Basically, the formations before the flood look just like the ones after the flood. What layers were caused by the flood and how do you know?

 

[duordi]

Then we can assume that the flood happened millions of years ago and that the processes that led to the sedimentation and rock before the flood are what gave us the sediment and rock after the flood?

I don't see how there is any evidence at all that can be pointed to a flood or how this evidence fits well with the event of a flood.

Basically, the formations before the flood look just like the ones after the flood. What layers were caused by the flood and how do you know?

You can not use the assumption of a slow steady lengthy accumulation of sediments when dealing with a catastrophic Earth model.

The combination of radioactivity, lava flow and high impact energy causing carbon 14 generation just about violates all of the assumptions required for the common dating systems used.

The evidence of a catastrophic event on Earth is easily given so the common accepted dating systems are an act of faith at best.

Science will eventually correct itself.

The assumptions used for the present dating systems were an honest attempt to determine Earths history with the information available 50 or 60 years ago.

As the previous generation dies off new information which has increased greatly in the last 25 years and has accelerated in the last 10 years will be considered and our perception of the ages of Earth history will change.

Of course the accepted thoughts of the scientific community of an age is always a generation behind reason.

The Earth was still considered flat when Columbus sailed to America even though at the time if someone considered the evidence available it was obvious the Earth was round.

In the same way when blood is found in a dinosaur bone which would indicate that the bone is only a few thousand years old at best, ( and not millions of years ) the scientific community is more likely to accept that a miracle has happened then that the traditional time scale beliefs may be incorrect.

So is your world round or flat?

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

The assumptions used for the present dating systems were an honest attempt to determine Earths history with the information available 50 or 60 years ago.

I just want to linger on this statement a little. Do you really, truly believe that the assumptions made 50 or 60 years ago have not changed or been put to the test in the intervening years? Don't you think that this statement is a bit hard to believe?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The Earth was still considered flat when Columbus sailed to America even though at the time if someone considered the evidence available it was obvious the Earth was round.

that is untrue. Columbus and most educated people knew that the earth was round but the diameter, despite being calculated correctly in 200BC, was miscalculated by at least 1/3 by Columbus possibly deliberately....

see:
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."

But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Science will eventually correct itself.

Actually, science corrected itself about 150 years ago when the global flood, which had been accepted as the source of the earth's sedimentary record was falsified. Masses the data collected since then have further falsified the global flood and no data support it. There is no more likelyhood that the global flood model will be resurrected as the source of the world's geology than that the phlogiston theory of combustion will make a comeback. Geology, palenotology, biogeography, archeology, biodiversity, paleoclimate research and other branches of science provide falsifications of the worldwide flood.

The flood myth is as well falsified as anything could be. BTW it is also a myth the people thought the world was flat in Colombus' time. Educated people knew it was round and knew that Asia was too far away to reach by sailing west.

FB

 

[notto]

In the same way when blood is found in a dinosaur bone which would indicate that the bone is only a few thousand years old at best, ( and not millions of years ) the scientific community is more likely to accept that a miracle has happened then that the traditional time scale beliefs may be incorrect.

No 'blood' has ever been found in a dinosaur bone.

 

[notto]

You can not use the assumption of a slow steady lengthy accumulation of sediments when dealing with a catastrophic Earth model.

The combination of radioactivity, lava flow and high impact energy causing carbon 14 generation just about violates all of the assumptions required for the common dating systems used.

You first say that the iridium layer marks the flood. We know that there was much sediment below that and there is much sediment above that. We can see no difference above or below with regards to the rate of sediment accumulation. Where is the evidence of the flood in all of this?

At what rate did the sediment below the iridium layer accumulate? Why can't we see this flood evidence above and below the iridum layer? Why does it all look like it was layed down by the same processes we see accumulating sediment and causing erosion today?

What specific evidence of the flood does the iridium layer provide? How do we know it was an effect of the flood? What leads you to that conclusion?

 

[Theophilus01]

the flood was local. it really did happen. we know this because several civilizations document a massive flood. the world that the Bible said was flooded was the world of the authors. the authors thought the world was very small - mainly a small chunk of the Middle East.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

the flood was local. it really did happen. we know this because several civilizations document a massive flood. the world that the Bible said was flooded was the world of the authors. the authors thought the world was very small - mainly a small chunk of the Middle East.

That is why when I refer to all the falsifications of the global flood I always try to remember to specify the myth of a Global or Worldwide flood. Massive, maybe, massive floods occasionally occur, worldwide no. However, YECs have no other way to explain the world's sedimentary record in a young earth, so the Global flood is central to their cult. It doesn't in any way explain the world's geology but they must think a long falsifed explanation is better than none at all.

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Sounds like the Grand Canyon, it wasn't no stream did that! A great source of geologic evidence of the flood is Immanuel Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", citing sea fossils in Tibet and such. Check my thread ""New Earth" doctrine/1000 years/Pyramids/Myths.

Velikovsky was a complete wacko who thought that Venus popped out of Jupiter and went flying by the earth as giant comet carrying insects to plague Egypt and mana to feed the Israelites before settling into its orbit, Sea fossils in Tibet have nothing to do with a global flood and the Grand Canyon was indeed carved by the Colorado River. It certainly wasn't no flood that laid down several thousand feet of varying and complexly layered sediments over wide areas and then carved steep 5,000 foot cliffs in fresh deposits. Further, the canyon is an equilibrium, dendritic drainage basin that was clearly not formed by a single great flood.

John Woolf has a some good stuff refuting creationist nonsense about the Canyon that starts HERE.

Creation Science and Earth History also has a careful demolition of Creationist Grand Canyon arguments starting HERE.

The best scientific text is Grand Canyon Geology by Beus and Morales. On reading it I see how grossly YECs such as Steve Austin understate the complexity of the Canyon's geology in order to promote their absurd mythology and claim that the sediments of the Colorado Plateau are mostly flood deposits.

FB

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

frumious, it is good to have you back, but does it ever feel like all this is useless besides showing ourselves how right we are? it convinces me daily that creationism is completely false to see creationist arguments, but do any of them ever admit how wrong they are?

 

[Grengor]

Both sides seem to say that...

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

true, but one side is wrong

 

[Grengor]

I just don't like it when one side says "I'm absolutely right on EVERYTHING, no matter what", or basically that .
(YEC's act like that more then Evo's, it always suprises me to see someone act like that.)

 

[duordi]

I just want to linger on this statement a little. Do you really, truly believe that the assumptions made 50 or 60 years ago have not changed or been put to the test in the intervening years? Don't you think that this statement is a bit hard to believe?

No. they are put to the test every day....

but a change in the basic time scale is not possible without much trauma.

When Einstein suggested that straight was bent and time wasn't the same everywhere the scientific community when through a lot of trauma and some very smart men tried, and are still trying to prove him wrong.

That was because he was challenging the core beliefs and not just tweaking at the edges.

He was of course hated with a passion at the time.

In the same way to suggest that a catastrophic event has occurred in the recent past will of course cause a tar and feathering.

Treatment in the forum is nothing compared to what happens in the real world.

The individual which dared to publish the information about the blood in the dinosaur bone, was of course fired.

She has more guts then I have.

Duane