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

[otseng]

Originally posted by Smilin
Otseng...

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

I guess cause I'm not trying to argue it by using the Bible as a source.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by otseng
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.

Okay...after some calculations I'll get back to you then...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by otseng
I guess cause I'm not trying to argue it by using the Bible as a source.

 

[Morat]

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)

   I forgot to mention that underwater lava flows are easily distinguishable. Looks totally different.

  Otseng: You're missing the point. You can find, in any strata, volcanic flows that happened out of the water. You can also find, smack in the middle of these "flood" strata, things like footprints, rain drop impressions, delicate insect burrows, and fossilized dung heaps. How did that all happen underwater?

  Better yet, how do you account for salt flats smack in the middle of your 'flood strata'?

 

[Smilin]

Underwater lava flows...as those observed in the Hawaiin Islands. If all the strata layers were the result of a worldwide flood...then the lava deposits in the strata layers would resemble those as observed in the Hawaiin Islands. (If as Otseng states all lava discharges occured after the flood).

Another problem with the 'world-wide simultaneous stratus' construction notion...otseng.....How do you account for non-layered deposits of limestone, sandstone, marble, and granite formations (to name just a few)...i.e. localized formations, that is to say they aren't consistent in their size, disttibution, layering, or area?

 

[Morat]

  Better yet, how does he account for unconformities? That's when a layer has been eroded away before other layers were deposited. How do you erode a layer in places, and not in others, when they're all underwater?

 

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by otseng
World-wide event. The flood covered every square inch of the planet.

Okay...after looking up some details...

Assuming the flood covered EVERY square inch of the earth including the mountain tops:

(following calculations are approximations,,,but close enough to prove a point)

1.  The water level would be six miles deep, since Mount Everest is 6 miles high.  That equates to 29,000 additonal feet of water.  I'm still working...but does this much water actually exist on earth?

2.  Main question: Where would all this water have went?  Water is less dense than the earth's surface, therefore it could not have been absorbed below the surface of the earth.  If it had....no oil or gas well or core drilling operations has ever hit a subterranean ocean six miles thick...

More food for thought...

Regards,

Smilin

 

[otseng]

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

Here's some articles on what is to believed some of the oldest cities and writings:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/aug02/caral.html
http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0201/WD20-7110.html
http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/wowp1vo.html

My point is that from investigations of civilizations and writings, we don't really have any proof that humans are older than 10,000 years old.

Seems like most peoples' concepts that humans are really old are cause they have to be old in order to have evolved from primates. However, we have no proof of humans existing prior to 10000 BC.

 

[otseng]

Originally posted by Smilin
Okay...after looking up some details...
1.  The water level would be six miles deep, since Mount Everest is 6 miles high.  That equates to 29,000 additonal feet of water.  I'm still working...but does this much water actually exist on earth?

Smilin

Mount Everest formed during the flood and as the water was receeding.

Like I said, prior to the flood, there were no major mountain ranges and no major oceans. So, it was relatively flat. So, it's not inconceivable for water to have covered the entire earth with the water we currently have.

As the subterranean water was gushing from the mid-atlantic crack, the water eventually covered the entire world. Both sides of this crust that was on top of this water pulled away the crack. Americas on one side. Europe/Africa on the other. As they receeded away, the subterranean water came above ground and no longer supported the crust. As the crust eventually hit the Moho layer underneath, the crust buckled by the momentum of the moving crusts. This buckling created the Rockies, Andes, Smokies, Alps, Himalyans. Notice that these mountain ranges are generally parallel with the mid-atlantic ridge.

2.  Main question: Where would all this water have went?  Water is less dense than the earth's surface, therefore it could not have been absorbed below the surface of the earth.  If it had....no oil or gas well or core drilling operations has ever hit a subterranean ocean six miles thick...

All the water went into the oceans and polar ice caps that we currently have.

The soil settled and form the rock layers that we have.

It also explains very well how we can have such huge deposits of coal and oil. The large animals and plants were rapidly buried with the sediment in the flood. Without a worldwide flood, it's more difficult to explain why we have such huge deposits of coal and oil.