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

[Smilin]

Otseng,
For the purpose of my understanding,
What are your notions on the Great Flood story?
From your previous statements, I already infer
your position is one of a truly global flood.

If the source of the water was a subterranean ocean,
when the flood waters receded...where did all the water go?

Many regards,
Smilin

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by Smilin
Otseng,

My education and knowledge in the field of Geology is very basic so I'll research properly before attempting to answer your questions.  Allow me to reemphasize that my whole intent of starting this thread was to become better informed on the Young Earth point of view.

I ask these questions cause geology is one major reason why people believe the Earth is old. I have presented a theory to explain the questions I posed and at the same time supporting a young earth.

 

[Morat]

Perhaps we have different number of posts per page. Anyways, it is the Humphries post (post #40).

There is no contradiction.

Time is relative. There is no such thing as absolute time. It's all based on the observer.

The white hole theory says that the universe could be old (observed from a distant star), but the amount of time experienced on earth could be short. So, from the earth's perspective, the universe is not old. From Andromeda, the universe could be old.

  Time is relative. But experienced time is not. An observer traveling at the speed of light would not experience the passing of time, yet the universe around him would.

    Humphries argues that the universe experienced billions of years of time, and that the Earth did not. Therefore, you cannot argue that the universe didn't experience this time!

   You claim galactic formations prove the universe is young, thus it didn't experience billions of years of time. But then you use Humphries to explain distant starlight, which requires that the universe experience billions of years of time.

  Do you see the problem here? You first claim the universe didn't experience all that time, because it's young, and then turn around and claim it did experience all that time.

 

 

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by Smilin
Otseng,
For the purpose of my understanding,
What are your notions on the Great Flood story?
From your previous statements, I already infer
your position is one of a truly global flood.

If the source of the water was a subterranean ocean,
when the flood waters receded...where did all the water go?

Many regards,
Smilin

OK, last post for today, I need to get back to work.

Yes, I believe in Noah's flood, literally.

Where did all the water go? First off, the world was flater prior to the flood (no oceans, no large mountain ranges).

After the flood, the topography of the earth was substancially changed. Oceans formed and major mountain ranges were created. All the water that originally covered the entire world receeded in the oceans we have now and also formed the polar ice caps.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by otseng
The white hole theory actually allows for astronomical objects to evolve over time. While at the same time allowing for a short period of time to elapse while on earth.

Then how does white-hole theory explain the motion of galaxies? It states that they existed for billions of years even if the Earth hasn't.

First off, to clear things up, there are no points where a compass will point magnetic north in the direction of the south pole. That is, there are no magnetic field reversals existing anywhere. (Not saying that you believe this, but to clear things in case other people reading this infer this)

Magnetic field lines have a definite magnitude and direction. If I take out a magnometer, I can point out the exact direction of the magnetic field. If the magnetic field reverses direction, I can detect this and point in the opposite direction.

The volcanic rock I have refered to has tiny magnets in it that are aligned to the magnetic field at the time of formation. If the magnetic field changes intensity or direction, they do not change because they are know set in stone and no longer free to rotate.

However, there are magnetic intensity fluctuations across the mid-oceanic ridge. And evolutionists account for this by saying there has been magnetic field reversals in the past. (Though there's no other evidence showing this)

Creationists account for them by the flood theory (or more specifically, the hydoplate theory) which I discussed in brief above. The magnetic fluctuations are exactly where the earth's crust split open for the subterranean water to gush out of the earth. So, the magnetic field fluctations could be caused by large magnetized metal being displaced by the eruption.

You have provided no mechanism for the magnetic rock to be stuck together without any obvious split. You have provided no mechanism for why the flood would do this. Also, how would volcanic rock form if the trench was sitting on a giant body of water. There would be no way to let the magma reach the surface without letting the water out as well.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by otseng
Now, time for me to ask questions to the other side...

- How did all the gas, oil, coal form?
- Where did all the plants/animals come from to form them?
- Why were animals and plants larger in the past?
- Why did those large animals and plants die out?

I believe the ice age is credited for this. Without abundent food supplies, supporting that mass is difficult.

- Why does Africa seem to 'fit' into the Americas?

There used to be one continent, but continental drift pushed them apart.

- Why caused the formation of the ocean canyons?

Magma coming from beneath the surface pushing the existing ocean floor appart.

- Why are rock stratas parallel to each other?

Because only one type of rock formed at a particular time. If you spread 1" of flour on the bottom of a bucket, then spread 1" of brown sugar, you get parallel strata.

- Where did all the soil come from to form all these stratas?

It eroded from other places or was deposited by plants and animals.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams


13. The Canyon could not have been formed by a flood. A giant flood would have eroded a larger area with a smaller magnitude. Only a river working for thousands of years could erode a slice of ground away without eroding the surrounding landscape.

Something else I'd like to add to this.  First off, I've never visited the Grand Canyon (yet, but will one day), and I'm not familiar with it's topography.  Only what I read.  I'm very familiar with the topography of Appalachia and will post some more points later to support the idea the earth is much older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old.  For now, after reviewing a topographical map of the Grand Canyon area, and reading the publications of Durango Bill. I pose the following question:

If a world flood formed the Grand Canyon, this would requires the subsequent flood to go uphill 30 river miles before it gets to the Kaibab Plateau, and then somehow collapse a path across the Kaibab. How would this be possible?

Also, how would you explain ancient raindrop impressions found by geologists in the Coconino Sandstone ?  It would be impossible to form raindrops at the bottom of a global flood.

 

[otseng]

  Do you see the problem here? You first claim the universe didn't experience all that time, because it's young, and then turn around and claim it did experience all that time.

First off, I've never said how old the universe is. All I've said is that it doesn't have to the billions of years old that old-agers claim.

Yes, I do admit there are discrepencies, and there's still much for me to learn as well as young-agers to discover. But, it's a developing field and I'm just proposing that there are plausible explanations as to why the earth can be young.

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
The volcanic rock I have refered to has tiny magnets in it that are aligned to the magnetic field at the time of formation. If the magnetic field changes intensity or direction, they do not change because they are know set in stone and no longer free to rotate.

The crust split in the hydoplate theory disrupted the magnetized rocks and repositioned them out of their original alignment, thus they give magnetic field irregularities.

If indeed the magnetic field of the earth did reverse (and how that can exactly occur is a great mystery), why would only the rocks along the mid-atlantic ridge have these anomolies?

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
Because only one type of rock formed at a particular time. If you spread 1" of flour on the bottom of a bucket, then spread 1" of brown sugar, you get parallel strata.

The problem is how can this happen for millions/billions of years with each layer perfectly parallel to each other across numerous square miles? Unless it's a totally flat desert. But, we see these parallel stratas everywhere.

If I were to expect rock stratas deposited over a long period of time, I would expect to see irregularities in the thickness of each layer.

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
I believe the ice age is credited for this. Without abundent food supplies, supporting that mass is difficult.

Could you elaborate on how the ice age answers:
- How did all the gas, oil, coal form?
- Where did all the plants/animals come from to form them?
- Why were animals and plants larger in the past?
- Why did those large animals and plants die out?

 

[ocean]

No one has all the answers on how they died, but we do know that fossil fuels do come from dead animals.

 

[Morat]

First off, I've never said how old the universe is. All I've said is that it doesn't have to the billions of years old that old-agers claim.

  Sure. And that'll be a marginally valid viewpoint the day you explain how we can see 15 billion years back in time, okay?

The problem is how can this happen for millions/billions of years with each layer <B>perfectly</B> parallel to each other across numerous square miles? Unless it's a totally flat desert. But, we see these parallel stratas <B>everywhere</B>.

If I were to expect rock stratas deposited over a long period of time, I would expect to see irregularities in the thickness of each layer.

&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.

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

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by ocean
No one has all the answers on how they died, but we do know that fossil fuels do come from dead animals.

OK, fossil fuels come from dead animals. Next question, why do we have such huge deposits of fossil fuels?

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by Morat
Sure. And that'll be a marginally valid viewpoint the day you explain how we can see 15 billion years back in time, okay?

I already did. The white hole theory.

&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You do see changes in the thickness of each layer. Erosion, different composition, etc. [/B]

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.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by otseng
The crust split in the hydoplate theory disrupted the magnetized rocks and repositioned them out of their original alignment, thus they give magnetic field irregularities.

If indeed the magnetic field of the earth did reverse (and how that can exactly occur is a great mystery), why would only the rocks along the mid-atlantic ridge have these anomolies?

The problem is that these rocks would not have formed before the Flood. The stored water would have to be between the magma and the surface. Therefore, the Flood cannot explain their alignment.

The way the magnetic field reverses is the result from the Earth's core shifting from one steady state to another. This comes about from fluid dynamics and chaos theory. It is a complex occurance, but by no means a great mystery.

This is how the magnetic field reversing causes these anomolies. Magma containing magnetic domains (think of tiny magnets) comes to the surface. Because the rock is liquid, the domains are free to rotate and orient themselves in the direction of the Earth's magnetic field in the same way a compass needle is able to align itself with the magnetic field. When the rock hardens, the magnetic domains can no longer rotate and are fixed in place. New magma pushes the new rock to the sides and begins the process again. If the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity, the new rock will be magnetically orientated in the opposite direction of the rock before the reversal. After several reversals, the ocean floor has stripes of opposite magnetic orientation.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by otseng
The problem is how can this happen for millions/billions of years with each layer perfectly parallel to each other across numerous square miles? Unless it's a totally flat desert. But, we see these parallel stratas everywhere.

If I were to expect rock stratas deposited over a long period of time, I would expect to see irregularities in the thickness of each layer.

The rock stratas will be approximately parallel over large areas which experience more or less the same conditions. However, they are nowhere near perfect. Small variations occur.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by otseng
I already did. The white hole theory.



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.

They are not perfect. They remain approximately parallel because they have no where to go. A rock is not going to move when sandwiched between other rocks.

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
The problem is that these rocks would not have formed before the Flood. The stored water would have to be between the magma and the surface. Therefore, the Flood cannot explain their alignment.

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.

This is how the magnetic field reversing causes these anomolies. Magma containing magnetic domains (think of tiny magnets) comes to the surface. Because the rock is liquid, the domains are free to rotate and orient themselves in the direction of the Earth's magnetic field in the same way a compass needle is able to align itself with the magnetic field. When the rock hardens, the magnetic domains can no longer rotate and are fixed in place. New magma pushes the new rock to the sides and begins the process again. If the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity, the new rock will be magnetically orientated in the opposite direction of the rock before the reversal. After several reversals, the ocean floor has stripes of

Do we see magnetic anomolies around volcanoes?

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
They are not perfect. They remain approximately parallel because they have no where to go. A rock is not going to move when sandwiched between other rocks.

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.