What do you think about the "New Earth Creation" view?

fragmentsofdreams · Oct 2, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
Here's the sequence of the layers starting from the surface and going to the core:
Crust/Granite
Subterranean water
Basalt/Mohorovicic discontinuity
Mantle
Magma/Core

The water was between two non-porous layers.

However, the magma could not have come to the surface to make the volcanic rock. It would need to puncture the water layer and release the Flood.

Do we see magnetic anomolies around volcanoes?

You probably could. However, because they are more erratic, obtaining useful information from them is very difficult.

fragmentsofdreams · Oct 2, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
My question is how did they originally form to be so parallel. One layer must have been layed down. Over time another layer went on top of the first layer. And third layer over the second. And so on, for hundreds of layers. Each layer as it was being layed down has a fairly uniform height across many square miles. Are we to believe that for millions of years, each layer laid a very uniform layer on top of the next.

If I look out, I don't see many places that are so flat that a layer can be deposited with such uniformity across such a wide area. Even if it was perfectly flat like a desert, there'd be a lot of material that needed to be laid down. And it'd have to somehow be perfectly distributed across such a huge area.

Look at a glacier. A layer of snow from a winter is covered by a layer of dust from the summer. This is in turn covered by another layer of snow. By going down into a glacier, you can infer information about the climate going back decades or even centuries.

Morat · Oct 2, 2002

My question is how did they <B>originally</B> form to be so parallel. One layer must have been layed down. Over time another layer went on top of the first layer. And third layer over the second. And so on, for hundreds of layers. Each layer as it was being layed down has a fairly uniform height across many square miles. Are we to believe that for millions of years, each layer laid a very uniform layer on top of the next.

   Do you have any way to place new sediment under old sediment? One would think that gravity would render that a problem.

If I look out, I don't see many places that are so flat that a layer can be deposited with such uniformity across such a wide area. Even if it was perfectly flat like a desert, there'd be a lot of material that needed to be laid down. And it'd have to somehow be perfectly distributed across such a huge area.

  My answer remains the same. They weren't laid down in uniform layers. One layer was laid down atop another. How thick or thin a layer is depends entirely on the geological context it was laid down in.

    Take any layer of the geologic column: Depending on where you are, the layer could be thick or thin, composed of all sorts of different rock, or even nonexistant from erosion and weathering.

  Varves are a simple version of this process. There is a lake in Japan that lays down sediment layers. But because of the pollen that falls into the lake in the spring, you can tell one year from the next. Dark layer, bright layer (pollen), dark layer, bright layer...

 

Smilin · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
     What do you mean by "perfectly parallel"? They're not the same thickness, or the same composition, worldwide. You can see uplift, distortions, inversions...all sorts of things.

   You do see changes in the thickness of each layer. Erosion, different composition, etc.

 

I can show you pictures of rock layers that are totally vertical here...and geologists still debate over there formation.  Otseng, do YEC's believe the layers of the earth were uniformly laid down?  I can send you pictures from this area that would totally contradict that notion.  We also have deposits of sandstone, limestone, coal, etc that are only 'local' deposits.

Smilin · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
Look at this image of the Grand Canyon. Notice that all the layers are perfectly parallel to each other. This is common wherever we look around the world. Sure, each layer has different thickness compared to the next layer. But each layer's thickness is constant for the entire layer.

Also, sure, you can see uplifts and distortions, but yet all the layers are still parallel to each other.

I find it incredible to believe that all these layers would be parallel to each other after millions of years of deposits.

Otseng,

Not all layers are parallel.  I'll show you examples here in Appalachia as soon as I can get digital pictures.  I can't speak for the Grand Canyon, but deposits here in the Appalachians are inconsistent in certain places.

Question:  How do parallel layer formations in the Grand Canyon explain a Young Earth....i.e. less than 4.5 billion years old?

ocean · Oct 3, 2002

I thought it was 4.5 billion years old.

Smilin · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
The earliest written records we have of mankind is 4000-5000 years ago. From the records, mankind possessed a lot of skills 4000-5000 years ago, agriculture, stone buildings, basic astronomy, woodworking, etc. Before that, there are no written records of mankind ever existing. Anything beyond this is pure conjecture.

Otseng...

Allow me to back up...and ask for specifics on this statement.  I'd like to learn more on what you are referring to.

Many regards,

Smilin

Morat · Oct 3, 2002

  I've got to wonder who was doing cave paintings 50,000 years ago then...

 

Smilin · Oct 3, 2002

I'm also wondering about about Native American artifacts found that date further back than this...?????

otseng · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
However, the magma could not have come to the surface to make the volcanic rock. It would need to puncture the water layer and release the Flood.

Only after the flood would volcanic activity take place.

otseng · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by Smilin
Otseng,

Question:  How do parallel layer formations in the Grand Canyon explain a Young Earth....i.e. less than 4.5 billion years old?

All the rock stratas (layers) were laid down by the flood.

otseng · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by Smilin
Otseng...

Allow me to back up...and ask for specifics on this statement.  I'd like to learn more on what you are referring to.

Many regards,

Smilin

Let me try to find my source for this...

Morat · Oct 3, 2002

Let's see:

Only after the flood would volcanic activity take place.

...

All the rock stratas (layers) were laid down by the flood.

   So, you're saying that you shouldn't find lava in any strata that's a flood strata.

   But you can find lava somewhere in any strata. So therefore, the flood couldn't have taken place.

 

fragmentsofdreams · Oct 3, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
Only after the flood would volcanic activity take place.

Then the Flood cannot be used as an explanation for the anomalies in volcanic rock.

Smilin · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
All the rock stratas (layers) were laid down by the flood.

How could a single flood lay down more than one rock layer?

Seems that multiple events are required for multiple layers???

Smilin · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
Let's see:

   So, you're saying that you shouldn't find lava in any strata that's a flood strata.

   But you can find lava somewhere in any strata. So therefore, the flood couldn't have taken place.

 

Morat, we can't conclude the flood didn't take place based upon those two statements.  We can only state:

1.  A global flood would not be responsible for all the rock strata that has been laid down (in the Grand Canyon) if lava were ONLY released AFTER a massive subterranean water release. (Since lava deposits are found in the different strata layers)

Now, 

Before I continue...Otseng....I need more details on your views.

1. Do you view the Great Flood as a world-wide event...or only a localized event?

2. Is your position that all strata layers of the earth were laid down by the Flood?....Or only localized strata (i.e. to a certain portion of the earth)?

Smilin · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by otseng
As for me, scientifically, I can't determine how old the earth/universe really is. But, I do believe that it's not measured in the billions of years. It could be in the millions or even thousands.

Otseng...

You're the first YEC I've met that would even CONSIDER an older earth than 10,000 years old... 

otseng · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Then the Flood cannot be used as an explanation for the anomalies in volcanic rock.

Are you talking about the magnetic anonmolies in the mid-atlantaic ridge? Actually, I see it as a very viable explanation. The mechanisms are different between my theory and yours. My theory doesn't purport that it was volcanic rock that is causing the anomolies. It was simply magnetized rocks (from whatever source) that were displaced during the bursting of the crust.

otseng · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by Smilin
How could a single flood lay down more than one rock layer?

Seems that multiple events are required for multiple layers???

Different layers were formed by different settling rates of the sediment in the flood. This neatly explains how all the stratas can be so parallel.
It also explains where all the sediment came from (material from the crust split).

Here's more thoughts about rock stratas:
- We see fossils in the rock stratas. Yet, if each layer takes hundreds, thousand, millions of years to form, how did the fossil get there? A fossil requires rapid burial and high pressure. Yet, each layer that we see is relatively thin. How could an animal/plant have been fossiled in the first place in such a thin layer?
- We also see huge deposits of coal. These are formed by plant material rapidly buried (before decaying) and high pressure is applied. How can such a massive amount of plant material be buried and intense pressure applied if it took a long time for each layer to form?
- Same with oil. Animals who die decompose or are eaten well before they can be fossilized?.
- What about fossiled fish? What can be the mechanism for fossiling fish?

otseng · Oct 4, 2002

Originally posted by Smilin
1. Do you view the Great Flood as a world-wide event...or only a localized event?

2. Is your position that all strata layers of the earth were laid down by the Flood?....Or only localized strata (i.e. to a certain portion of the earth)?

World-wide event. The flood covered every square inch of the planet.

All strata layers were laid down by the flood.

As for volcanic layers in the stratas, there certainly could have been some magma mixed in with the sediments in the water.

What do you think about the "New Earth Creation" view?

Young Earth Creation....What is your opinion?

I believe in the Young Earth Creation teaching

I don't believe in the Young Earth Creation teaching

I have no opinion

I have no clue what Young Earth Creation teaches

Critical loyalist

Critical loyalist

Untitled One

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Banned (just kidding)

Spirit of the Wolf

Untitled One

Spirit of the Wolf

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Untitled One

Critical loyalist

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Spirit of the Wolf

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency