The flood meta-thread (from "A question for Jim Laramore")

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by simian
The flood. If all the mountains were covered, that would include Mons Olympus (hope I got the name right). Hey - if the mass of water to flood the earth can be ignored, why worry abou water to flood the solar system? It was a miracle.



One model of the flood shows that pangea existed then and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today. As a matter of fact ( I don't have a reference for this ) I've read if you flattened out all the mountains and hills of the earth the entire globe would be under approx. 30 feet of H2O. So if you add great amounts of water from subteranean aquafiers ( ms ) the flood could have happened just like the Bible says.

[Plognark]

One model of the flood shows that pangea existed then and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today. As a matter of fact ( I don't have a reference for this ) I've read if you flattened out all the mountains and hills of the earth the entire globe would be under approx. 30 feet of H2O. So if you add great amounts of water from subteranean aquafiers ( ms ) the flood could have happened just like the Bible says.

You were doing so well....:banghead::banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
*sigh*


Edited only to remove info pertaining to original thread--Roland98]

[simian]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One model of the flood shows that pangea existed then and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today. As a matter of fact ( I don't have a reference for this ) I've read if you flattened out all the mountains and hills of the earth the entire globe would be under approx. 30 feet of H2O. So if you add great amounts of water from subteranean aquafiers ( ms ) the flood could have happened just like the Bible says.

Granite mountains forming in less than 4,000 years? If my memory about granite formation is correct, the minimum time for slow cooling to form granite is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 years. If one is going to believe what is written in the bible, believe what is written in the bible, don't make stuff up to try to fill in the next problem that comes up when somebody tries to "improve" the mythology to make it more believable.

Simian

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One model of the flood shows that pangea existed then and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today. As a matter of fact ( I don't have a reference for this ) I've read if you flattened out all the mountains and hills of the earth the entire globe would be under approx. 30 feet of H2O. So if you add great amounts of water from subteranean aquafiers ( ms ) the flood could have happened just like the Bible says.

Not hardly. For one, humans weren't present on Pangea. For another, "and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today" is not true - the continental plates had moved (and collided) to form Pangea. Pangea existed some 300-200m years ago. So there's no reason to assume there weren't high mountain ranges.

(edited to add: but this has nothing to do with life on Mars...)

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by simian
Granite mountains forming in less than 4,000 years? If my memory about granite formation is correct, the minimum time for slow cooling to form granite is somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 years. If one is going to believe what is written in the bible, believe what is written in the bible, don't make stuff up to try to fill in the next problem that comes up when somebody tries to "improve" the mythology to make it more believable.

Simian

Have you heard of the pleochloric halos found in the mica in granite for the element palonium? The half lifes of these elements are very short. For these pleochloric halos to exist the granite could not have taken that long to form.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Mageth
Not hardly. For one, humans weren't present on Pangea. For another, "and the techtonic plates hadn't moved to cause the high mountain ranges we have today" is not true - the continental plates had moved (and collided) to form Pangea. Pangea existed some 300-200m years ago. So there's no reason to assume there weren't high mountain ranges.

(edited to add: but this has nothing to do with life on Mars...)

Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. We don't know what the mountain ranges were on pangea but its feasible that they were nothing like they are now and the world back then was relatively flat compared to today.

[simian]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Have you heard of the pleochloric halos found in the mica in granite for the element palonium? The half lifes of these elements are very short. For these pleochloric halos to exist the granite could not have taken that long to form.

Please. Check out the locations of the palonium halos. Always near uranium (uranium > radon > palonium). Please see:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=polonium+halo&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
(search of the talkorigins.org site for polonium halo - assuming this pasted correctly).

Keep cracking away, perhaps you can actually come up with a topic where the scientific concensus is "we don't know". Or perhaps not, given the poor state of creationist writings and non-existance of actual research. But please, please, please, don't bring up subject that were fully debunked decades ago.

Simian

[simian]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. We don't know what the mountain ranges were on pangea but its feasible that they were nothing like they are now and the world back then was relatively flat compared to today.

So humans were around from the beginning? Perhaps you can show human fossils or even just obvious human buildings at the bottom of the sedimentary layers? If not, why not. I fail to see how a stone building can outrun a flood, and people who are dead and burried certainly are not going to get up and move to prevent themselves from being at the bottom of the fossil record....

Simian

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Huh? Since when?

and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. We don't know what the mountain ranges were on pangea but its feasible that they were nothing like they are now and the world back then was relatively flat compared to today.

Research the Laurentian Mountain Range of Canada (formed @ 1 billion years ago) (you can read about it here (http://sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/urban/his_precambrian.asp)) and Avalonia (http://www.jamestown-ri.info/geological_history.htm).

From the last page:

The Avalonian arc collided with Proto North America about 400 million years ago. The impact contributed most of the land that has become the New England states and created most of the northern Appalachians, as we know them. The Appalachians are actually a complex mix of mountains formed by a series of continental collisions, beginning with the (now heavily eroded and often buried) Grenville mountains (formed more than 1 billion years ago), the Taconic mountains (formed by another island chain collision about 50 million years prior to the collision with Avalonia) and newer mountains formed about 350 million years ago when North America and North Africa collided, raising portions to great heights. This collision was one of several that formed a supercontinent, Pangaea about 306 million years ago.

So it seems mountain ranges were definitely around back then.

[Duck!]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed and the continental movement to its present postions is evidence to show mountain formation. [emphasis mine]

The flood model shows this or claims this? Does "the" flood model consist of anything other than asserting the truth of the Biblical story?

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Duck of Death
The flood model shows this or claims this? Does "the" flood model consist of anything other than asserting the truth of the Biblical story?

Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

AAAAARRRGGHHHH! How can anyone believe in a global flood in the 21th century?

Sorry, I just wanted to vent my anger. Please ignore this.

Jim, a global flood is contradicted by many areas of science. Please study this topic before claiming this garbage. For example, there's TO... and Jim, even if you think they omit something/many things - I just ask you to read it, I don't ask you to not read anything else. And again: Please point out what exactly the TO-FAQs omit.

For starters, an easy question: Why do humans appear very late in the fossil record? Where aren't any human fossils in >90% of the stratas below the ones in which human fossils are found?

BTW, as simian (?) has already pointed out to you, there is also a FAQ on the polonium (if I remember correctly, you claimed to be a chemist - why do you write palonium?) halos at TO. This "fact" is debunked very easily.

Edited to add: Have you ever heard of (large/catastrophic) local floods?

[variant 13]

Originally posted by Sven
. And again: Please point out what exactly the TO-FAQs omit.

That goddidit? :rolleyes:

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind. In stratigraphy we see this evidence in the North American continent in several places and some stratas leave off here and pick back up on the shores of England.

OK, now you have to show the evidence. Just exactly where are these huge and massive burials that were deposited by a flood.

The second sentence seems to be an attempt to tie the continents into the same event. Is that what you are doing? Of course some of the stratigraphy matches. But you are invoking a match with flood stratigraphy.

I'm all ears...

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by rlogan
OK, now you have to show the evidence. Just exactly where are these huge and massive burials that were deposited by a flood.

The second sentence seems to be an attempt to tie the continents into the same event. Is that what you are doing? Of course some of the stratigraphy matches. But you are invoking a match with flood stratigraphy.

I'm all ears...

rlogan,

Aren't you studied up on these things? Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization. Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Aren't you studied up on these things?
You dare to ask this?


Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

So what? No geologist would deny that there were catastrophic floods. But every geologist denies that there was a global flood - except the ones who have a preconceived belief to defend.


A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization.
So far no creationist has managed to come up with a model which explains the order of the fossils. Thus a global flood doesn't account at all for "these fossils".


Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.
This is your opinion. Have you calculated these forces? Have you calculated the amount of water which is necessary? If not, there is no basis for your claim

[Sven]

First I'd like to point out that this thread got far off topic - may I suggest to split it into one on flood geology?

From here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part12.html):


Many evangelical Christians today suppose that Bible believers have always been in favor of a "young-universe" and "creationism." However, as any student of the history of geology (and religion) knows, by the 1850s all competent evangelical Christian geologists agreed that the earth must be extremely old, and that geological investigations did not support that the Flood "in the days of Noah" literally "covered the whole earth."

From the conclusion:


As explained in the paragraphs above, "Flood geology" had been seriously considered and rejected by devout Christian geologists before Darwin's book on evolution was published in 1859.

So, Jim, did you know this? Since you implicitly claimed to be "studied on the subject" I have to assume yes.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Sven
no[/i] creationist has managed to come up with a model which explains the order of the fossils. Thus a global flood doesn't account at all for "these fossils".


This is your opinion. Have you calculated these forces? Have you calculated the amount of water which is necessary? If not, there is no basis for your claim

You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.This is exactly what I was talking about in our private e-mails.

Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site.

Seems the sedimental layering resembles those put down in the grand canyon almost to a tee, except they were made in hours or days not millions of years , also the erosional factors of sediments leave one to wonder how they could have been a product of long ages. Layers put down one upon another would exibit more evidence of errosion than what we see. Some layers are essentially prestine throughout.

There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

[variant 13]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.

Creationism was the old paradigm which was shot down in flames.

[Majestyk]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site. Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html) reviewed his findings and found his methodolgy lacking.

But then, that's the thing about science, a scientist properly applying their profession will go where the evidence leads them and not adjust the evidence to match their preconceptions. Granted not all scientists approach their work without bias but enough do so as to allow us to eventually weed out that which is inconsistent with reality. Peer review, gotta love it.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.This is exactly what I was talking about in our private e-mails.

So, Jim, have you understood that Christians established this paradigm? That they found evidence falsifying a global flood? And that no one - except the ones who have a special, literal interpretation of the bible to defend - has came up with evidence to the contrary? I see no reason to change my view on this since there has been scientific consensus for over 150 years - all over the world, including people of all faiths.

[snipped stuff on Dr. Austin - see above about defending beliefs and the post of Majestyk]


There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

Then please go on and present some research which has not been found lacking in methology - that is, something which has been published in peer reviewed geological journals. Hint: Bad methology can be determined objectively.

And please, don't start whining now about unfair treatment, a conspiracy against "honest" work from creationists etc.

Edited to add: I see you haven't answered my other post. When will you present a flood model which accounts for the order of the fossils? When will you present your calculations of the forces which were necessary? When will you present a scientific methology which is able to work with the explain-all explanation "goddit"?

[Sven]

Hello, Jim!

In case you don't want to go to TO any more, here (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm) is another (lenghty) article on Dr. Austins work.

And I wanted to ask: Have you researched the polonium halos by now? Do you have counter-arguments? Or will you just admit that Gentry apparently fitted evidence to his preconceived belief? (one could call this "lying for god", but I try to give creationists the benefit of the doubt)

If you find time, you can try to answer simian's posts, who also had some good points.

P.S.: I'm still waiting for you to point out what exactly TO omits.

[Sven]

I keep posting this, perhaps I get an answer eventually...

So, Jim:
If one accepts MACROEVOLUTION, can one believe in (a version of) the Christian God at the same time?

If no, why not?

If yes, why do you keep mentioning your "eternal fate" (I don't remember the exact woring) when discussing MACROEVOLUTION?

Is it because you think that one goes straight to hell after death for accepting MACROEVOLUTION?

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Majestyk
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html) reviewed his findings and found his methodolgy lacking.

But then, that's the thing about science, a scientist properly applying their profession will go where the evidence leads them and not adjust the evidence to match their preconceptions. Granted not all scientists approach their work without bias but enough do so as to allow us to eventually weed out that which is inconsistent with reality. Peer review, gotta love it.

Well, this articles content covered a different area of Dr. Austin's work than I have been talking about. The areas I was talking about was the stratigraphy and the sedimentation of the canyons and stratas built by the huge water/mud/lava push during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

I had heard about the dating of the lava some time ago but wasn't aware that Dr.Austin had done it. It would be interesting to see another dating done to see how it reads. Theres some other areas of strata study called cylothems thats very interesting and bring into focus the possiblity of a global flood.

You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me. There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too. Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too . We used to think mercury was ok as a topical treatment for cuts and even took it orally back during the plague, ( I'm sure this made the people sicker for sure ).

Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood, in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity. Huh, well I have studied the evidence and based on what I see I can say the flood makes sense, not only from a logical point of view but from an empirical sense as well. I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet. I see vastly scattered fossil beds of invertabrates and like I have mentioned earlier massive burial sites of vertabrates too. Now, if you think I believe the water covered the highest mountain your wrong. I don't believe the water had to do that. I don't believe our mountains was near that high back then. I believe plate techtonics ( ms) have been much much faster in the past and caused what we see now in our mountain ranges today. The Bible mentions the earth doing this in the days of "Peleg".

Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Sven
[

Then please go on and present some research which has not been found lacking in methology - that is, something which has been published in peer reviewed geological journals. Hint: Bad methology can be determined objectively

I'm currently studying some work being done on some stratas and liquifaction. Looks interesting , we'll see how it stacks up methodologically.:D

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
rlogan,

Aren't you studied up on these things? Some of Jack Horner's digs are huge massive burial sites and even he made a statement that there was a flood. He may not have meant a Biblical flood but indeed he says it took a huge flood to account for such a large collection of animals found in some of his sites.

A flood does well to account for these fossils. A massive kill without an immediate burial would not have allowed the preservation by fossilization. Liquifaction of the soil and gigantic forces to move these hundreds of thousands of animals to one area were no doubt of Biblical flood proportions.

Now, now there Jim. Don't be trying to contort my question. I am completely unaware of any research supporting a global flood at all - let alone one tying fossil records into a global flood.

I still see no citation here and you can't make me chase down something you are claiming as a reference.

Floods happen all the time, Jim. Massive ones. But not Biblical proportions. I am going to bet the farm that Jack Horner absolutely did NOT say global flood. Don't be dissembling there with "may not" have meant global flood.

Boy, you threw out a bunch of stuff like Palonium, the flood model, Austin - and then don't want us to address them? Back to mars? naughty boy.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me.
This is not my only argument. My argument is that there was enough evidence to conclude this 150 year ago and that in the past 150 years evidence has continued to accumulate that a global flood never happened.

There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too.
I don't know what you are talking about here. What was this conclusion? And on which evidence was it based on?


Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too.

So what? Did anybody claim back then that cells can not be complex?


We used to think mercury was ok as a topical treatment for cuts and even took it orally back during the plague, ( I'm sure this made the people sicker for sure ).

So what? Did anybody claim back then that it is certain that mercury can not have ill effects?


Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood

No, Jim, they say that they see evidence against a global flood. Please realize this. And the evidence against a global flood continued to accumulate for the past 150 years.


in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity.

What has geocentricity to do with a global flood?! Huh? Geocentricity was discarded much earlier than 1800! And it was discarded based on evidence.


Huh, well I have studied the evidence and based on what I see I can say the flood makes sense, not only from a logical point of view but from an empirical sense as well.

I'm still waiting for your model which explains the order of the fossils. Without such a model, your claims are totally baseless.


I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet.

And this forces could only have been caused by a global flood? Perhaps you should discuss this with a geologists before drawing conclusions!


I see vastly scattered fossil beds of invertabrates and like I have mentioned earlier massive burial sites of vertabrates too.

So what? Rlogan and I have pointed to several large/catastrophic local floods - which are well established by geology, in contrast to one global flood.


Now, if you think I believe the water covered the highest mountain your wrong. I don't believe the water had to do that. I don't believe our mountains was near that high back then.

No, I didn't think this. I'm well aware that creationists realized long ago that it were impossible for Mount Everest (or even Mt. Ararat) to be covered with water.


I believe plate techtonics ( ms) have been much much faster in the past and caused what we see now in our mountain ranges today.

Another thing which you believe not only without evidence, but even with evidence to the contrary. Geologists know how to find evidence for such ridiculously fast plate tectonics - and they haven't found any.


The Bible mentions the earth doing this in the days of "Peleg".

I assume you refer to Gen 10:25
KJV: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided;
similar in NIV, NASB, NKJV

So, please, explain why "dividing the earth" means "rising up mountains". You have to push plates against each other for mountains to rise, not to tear them apart! Sounds like wishful thinking to me.


Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.
The only remaining thing to do is to find evidence for such a global flood... which (somehow) contradicts the findings of geologists working for 150 years.

I'm still waiting for answers to my question about the acceptance of evolution in relation to your eternal fate, about polonium halos, about specific examples what TO omits, and a scientific alternative to methodlogical naturalism. Looks a lot like you simply can not answer these.

[Sven]

I realized that you even contradict yourself:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I see first hand from field observation the apparent after math of massive forces on the crust of our planet.



Like I said they have done studies on the volume of wate on our planet and have calculated that if you take the mountains and smooth out our planet the entire planet would be under water by several feet. The waters that flooded us long ago are still here in our oceans.

So, Jim, which is it? Massive forces on the crust or only "several feet of water"?

I'm also curious why the world-changing event of parting continental plates, mountains rising up, massive vulcanic activity because of this, etc. etc. etc. is only mentioned in a subordinate clause (in passing) in the bible. And why this wasn't recorded by anyone else (Chinese, Egyptians, etc.). You are simply grasping at straws.

BTW, IIRC (I love abbreviations :) ) you claimed that predators only appeared after the flood (or was it another fundie?); perhaps you claimed this occured after the fall. Please explain why this isn't mentioned in a single sentence in the bible.

[Duvenoy]

At this point, I'll offer up yet again this cannonball:

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

Dr. Leipzig has yet to be refuted, and I wish someone finally would for no better reason than the good Doctor's style bugs me.

This business of the shape of the earth/placement of the continents at the time of the alledged flood is no more than wishful speculation, unsupported by any geological evidence whatsoever. Can you imagine the incredable results of the Rockies and Everest, et al, rising to their current altitude(s) in only a few thousand years? We'd still be shakin' and bakin' today, assuming that Noah & Co. didn't drown (or boil) in the first 20 minutes, as seems most likely.

So, tear the math down if you can.

doov

[Sven]

Originally posted by Duvenoy
This business of the shape of the earth/placement of the continents at the time of the alledged flood is no more than wishful speculation, unsupported by any geological evidence whatsoever. Can you imagine the incredable results of the Rockies and Everest, et al, rising to their current altitude(s) in only a few thousand years? We'd still be shakin' and bakin' today, assuming that Noah & Co. didn't drown (or boil) in the first 20 minutes, as seems most likely.
So, tear the math down if you can.
doov

Thanks, Duvenoy. But as I demonstrated above, the bible itself is enough evidence to tear apart this argument. It is simply ridiculous that such earth-shaking events aren't worth several chapters or even only several verses.

[lpetrich]

Jim Larmore:
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Thus requiring superfast continental drift.

Why should the continents gallop to nearly their present locations, and then slow down to the sort of drift rates consistent with old-earthism?

And yes, Pangaea did have mountains, notably where Laurentia collided with Gondwana. Check out http://www.scotese.com

[Sven]

Hey Jim (or anyone else), if you want to see another creationist getting bashed for claiming that Noah's Flood was real, look at this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=74496)

Also many good arguments there - but none which help your case.

[lpetrich]

Jim Larmore:
Much of it is hypothesis just like many areas in science. The fossil record does show in many areas where huge and massive burials of animals took place and appear to have been deposited there by a flood of some kind.

Or more likely, cumulative buildup, which can involve lots of local floods. Jim Larmore, think of yourself as you walk. Each step is a small distance, but the cumulative distance can be very large.

Furthermore, different "fossil graveyards" have different ages and different fauna. The La Brea Tar Pits has late-Pleistocene fauna, which is mostly familiar-looking, but with occasional exotica like sabertooth felines. Earlier ones look more and more exotic and less and less familiar. The Permo-Triassic Karroo fossil graveyard (http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/index.html) in southern Africa is largely mammal-like reptiles.

You and your opinion seems to me to be a great example of totally accepting the status quo and what the established paradigm parades.

Established paradigms? Like belief in the literal truth of the Bible?

Dr. Steve Austin, a geologist PhD has come to a different conclusion of stratigraphy based on his recent study of sedimentation layering and canyon formation at the Mr.St. Helens eruption site.

Unconsolidated volcanic ash.

There are many other aspects of geological evidence that doesn't jive with long periods of time to produce what we see.

Like?

Theres some other areas of strata study called cylothems thats very interesting and bring into focus the possiblity of a global flood.

In what way?

If anything, they suggest the exact opposite -- cycles of deposition of different materials.

You know your trumpeting the fact that the global flood was discounted 150 years ago is really insignificant as a convincing arguement for me.

Why not? It's a result that's stood the test of time.

There were many who had a logical and convincing conclusion about the position of the earth in those days too.

Heliocentrism had been widely accepted for at least two centuries before that.

Bacteria and cells were at one time considered as inconsequential and uncomplex by those back then too.

Because it was hard to see many details of them -- especially for bacteria.

Now today science has said they see absolutley no evidence for a global flood, in other words they haven't changed or refuted what was concluded by the same people who believed in geocentricity.

Jim Larmore has his history of science all mixed up.

(massive deposits of fossils)

Jim Larmore, what do you find unconvincing about the cumulative-deposition hypothesis?

[Jim Larmore]

The tar pits are an exception of deposition because they were there for a long period and they collected specimens over a long period. The nature of what they do and the way they do it is entirely different than the "replacing" aspect of fossilization. Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed. Any other modality would have precluded them being there at all. Theres just too many forces at work to erase the evidence.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Jim Larmore:
Actually, the flood model shows that people were around when pangea existed

Thus requiring superfast continental drift.

Why should the continents gallop to nearly their present locations, and then slow down to the sort of drift rates consistent with old-earthism?

And yes, Pangaea did have mountains, notably where Laurentia collided with Gondwana. Check out http://www.scotese.com

Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today. One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today. One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

If you look at my post at the top of page 3, there are a couple of more links.

Some of the mountain ranges formed during those collisions were as high as any we have today, with little doubt.

[lpetrich]

Jim Larmore:
The tar pits are an exception of deposition because they were there for a long period and they collected specimens over a long period.

Judging from the geological record, I'd say that's typical.

The nature of what they do and the way they do it is entirely different than the "replacing" aspect of fossilization.

And how is that supposed to be the case?

Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed.

What literature? The mainstream-paleontology literature or the creationist literature?

Any other modality would have precluded them being there at all.

How so?

Theres just too many forces at work to erase the evidence.

WHAT forces???

Sediment can accumulate bit by bit until it becomes a giant deposit.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Most of the huge burial sites I've studied in the literature indicate a sudden massive burial of the specimens observed.
Even if you are right (see the post of lpetrich): How does this fact excludes several local catastrophic floods? Could you eventually explain this? If you can not demonstrate that these burials occured at essentially the same time (one year), this simply isn't evidence for a global flood.

And you still have to explain all the other evidence away which contradicts a global flood - you haven't even attempted to do this. BTW, there are also a couple of other questions waiting to be answered...

[lpetrich]

Jim Larmore:
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today.

How is "much of what geologist say today" speculation?

Jim Larmore, you will have to justify the accusations that you make. Do you really think that mainstream geologists are nothing but crackpots?

One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

Which leaves unexplained why the continents nowadays drift at old-Earth-expected rates.

The facts of the drift is irrefutable. We see marine fossils all over our mountain tops even in the Hemalayas (ms) , this indicates the surfaces of our mountains used to be at or under sea level.

Meaning that they were once continental shelf.

Laurentia colliding with Gondwana? Your ahead of me on this one but again if it happened the two peaks your talking about were probably very small compared to what we have today and thus could have been inundated by the global flood.

Jim Larmore, you have a lot to learn about continental drift.

It did NOT start with Pangaea -- it has been going on for as long as the Earth has had well-defined continents, which is around 4 billion years. Pangaea itself was formed by the collision of previous continents, notably Laurentia and Paleozoic Gondwana. Laurentia is essentially Paleozoic North America and Greenland.

[Sven]

Hey Jim, since you appear to understand the definition of "kind" much better than anyone else here (but nevertheless have not bothered to give us a definition), I think it would be a great idea if you answered the long post of Oolon Colluphid on page 16 of the thread "On providing data and ID".

Over there, you'll also find a post by Per Ahlberg on page 8 which he patiently is awaiting an answer for.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by lpetrich
Jim Larmore:
Its speculation, I'll admit to that but so is much of what geologist say today.

How is "much of what geologist say today" speculation?

Jim Larmore, you will have to justify the accusations that you make. Do you really think that mainstream geologists are nothing but crackpots?

One scenario to answer your question is the initial forces that caused the earth to separate in the days of Peleg made them drift rapidly until they reached a state of equilibrium. The forces driving the continental drift now is slower because the plates are basically stable, i.e. they move inches a year not kilometers a year.

Which leaves unexplained why the continents nowadays drift at old-Earth-expected rates


I have never said today's geologists are a bunch of crack pots. I don't believe this !!!What I said is much of what they say is speculation . This speculation is based on present day measurements and observation. Not everyone has the same opinion of these varied speculations. Peer review is good in science like Sven says and it evens out the bumps in hypothesis', however when you look at all the information in science you get a "mean" opinion if you will of what "may" have happened. Theres no way of proving any of this for a certainty. Like your statement on continental drift being something that has always been going on. It makes sense that this is true however that statement is pure speculation based on what we see today, but this may not be what really has happened at all.

If a global flood did happen the way the Bible says it did and massive quantities of subterranean water came up to flood the surface this would have destabilized the continental plates and "possibly" caused them to shift very rapidly. Like I have said once they got to going the momentum could have carried them long distances until they reached a point of stasis. This hypothesis is not new and it has never been disproven either.

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments. The only difference is these sediments were laid down very rapidly and the erosional areas were cut rapidly. This discounts long ages for the same things we see like in the grand canyon or any other area where we see stratification. The stratifigraphy may be all messed up age wise. What has always been accepted as truth may not be true at all.

Now the tar pits use a continual supply of petroleum based chemicals to preserve the animals that fall into it. This process of preservation is entirely different than fossilization where the bone is replaced by the crystalline substrate the specimen is exposed to. You know,,, oil is one ,,,,soluable crystals is another. The mechanisms being different require a different scenario to explain the way they have collected their specimens. The huge massive burial sites indicate a rapid burial where preservation took place by preventing exposure to the elements which would irradicate them. The tar pits are just there and have been for mellinia catching unwary victims on a regular basis and as a matter of fact would do it today if one falls into it.

[Sven]

How often has this to be explained to you: If a global flood had occured, we (geologists) would expect to find loads of evidence for it. But nobody has found any of it. In the whole world, in the whole geological column, for almost 200 years. This means the flood didn't happen. Case closed.

And no, your "evidence" does not count because it is much more consistent with several local floods.

To be specific: If there was a global flood, there has to be a stratum which shows evidence for it all over the world. Since no such stratum was found, the flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen.

Got it?

[Duvenoy]

It is all really very simple. If there had been the described global flood, the fossil record would be a junbled mass of representives of virtually everything; humans, dinosaurs, forests, stromatolites, trilobites, well, everything. Rather, the fossil record presents itself in an orderly fashion, top to bottom, fore and aft, as the Theory of Evolution predicts.

I must agree with Sven.

doov

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Sven
How often has this to be explained to you: If a global flood had occured, we (geologists) would expect to find loads of evidence for it. But nobody has found any of it. In the whole world, in the whole geological column, for almost 200 years. This means the flood didn't happen. Case closed.

And no, your "evidence" does not count because it is much more consistent with several local floods.

To be specific: If there was a global flood, there has to be a stratum which shows evidence for it all over the world. Since no such stratum was found, the flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen. The flood didn't happen.

Got it?

Saying it a 'MILLION TIMES" won't make it true Sven. Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility? Have you ever done field research on your own to verify your peer review literature or do you just take them at their word?

Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me. There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr. Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time. This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

[Mech Bliss]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Seems the sedimental layering resembles those put down in the grand canyon almost to a tee...

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments. The only difference is these sediments were laid down very rapidly and the erosional areas were cut rapidly. This discounts long ages for the same things we see like in the grand canyon or any other area where we see stratification. The stratifigraphy may be all messed up age wise. What has always been accepted as truth may not be true at all.

This illustrates that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, quite frankly. Comparing lahar deposits around Mt. St. Helens to the Grand Canyon, which is obviously a more complex feature, requires that you ignore even the most superficial observations like color, texture, and rock type not to mention other features that are plainly obvious like the fact that the Grand Canyon has lithified sediment. Mt. St. Helens involves unconsolidated pyroclastics with mud and the "canyon" eroded was a result of human activity to avoid significant flooding of Spirit Lake and was not a natural occurrance. Creationists who claim this comparison are saying nothing more than the most superficial observation that "oh there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" That's a terrible analysis.

Do we see the same things at Mt. St. Helens as we do at the Grand Canyon that makes the comparison "almost to a tee?" Hardly. Not even an introductory geology student would make such an outlandish claim.

Where are the following features that exist at the Grand Canyon at the Mt. St. Helens site:

Limestone that is several hundred feet thick like the Redwall Limestone at the GC?
Fossilized brachiopods and other marine creatures in the rocks?
Cross bedded quartz sandstone of a desert-like environment like the Coconino Sandstone at the GC?
Trace fossils such as tracks and burrows in the rocks?
Sharp meanders/goosenecks in the canyon from erosion by the Colorado river?
Interbedded shale and limestone like at the GC?
Angular unconformities like the Great Unconformity at the GC?
Other unconformities between sedimentary layers indicative of erosion and no deposition like at the GC?

You won't find any of these features. You won't even find the lahar deposits to be lithified either. They aren't even remotely comparable.

The only way to claim that the stratigraphy in the unconsolidated volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helens and the stratigraphy at the Grand Canyon are equivalent is if you ignore even the most basic things like rock type, scale, and parts of the GC stratigraphy that are not horizontal. That's just dishonest pseudoscience.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Mech Bliss
Do we see the same things at Mt. St. Helens as we do at the Grand Canyon that makes the comparison "almost to a tee?" Hardly. Not even an introductory geology student would make such an outlandish claim.

Limestone that is several hundred feet thick like the Redwall Limestone at the GC?
Fossilized brachiopods and other marine creatures in the rocks?
Cross bedded quartz sandstone of a desert-like environment like the Coconino Sandstone at the GC?
Trace fossils such as tracks and burrows in the rocks?
Sharp meanders/goosenecks in the canyon from erosion by the Colorado river?
Interbedded shale and limestone like at the GC?
Angular unconformities like the Great Unconformity at the GC?
Other unconformities between sedimentary layers indicative of erosion and no deposition like at the GC?

You won't find any of these features. You won't even find the lahar deposits to be lithified either. They aren't even remotely comparable.

The only way to claim that the stratigraphy in the unconsolidated volcanic ash at Mt. St. Helens and the stratigraphy at the Grand Canyon are equivalent is if you ignore even the most basic things like rock type, scale, and parts of the GC stratigraphy that are not horizontal. That's just dishonest pseudoscience.

Maybe you should discuss this with Steve Austin Ph.D its his work I've been referring too. One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas. Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition. Also, the observations of Mt. St. Helens is not all pyroclastic volcanic ash and mud, much of it is layed out in stratas much like we see in the much larger GC depositions. Maybe you should go there Mech Bliss or have you already been?

[Mageth]

One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas. Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition.

The strata of the Grand Canyon are chock full of evidence for erosion, for long ages of erosion. Study up on the unconformities that Mech Bliss mentioned.

Grand Canyon Unconformities (http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm)

A quote:

The Vishnu schist and gneiss below this unconformity were deposited as sediments almost 2,000,000,000 years ago. Eventually these rocks found themselves deep in the roots of a mountain range and were metamorposed to schist and gneiss. Millions of years were then needed to erode the mountains and lift these rocks back to the surface. Then deposition resumed with the Bass limestone and higher rocks of the Unkar Group.

[Duck!]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

For it to be as old as it is? Surely you're not suggesting that the Grand Canyon isn't as old as the Grand Canyon is? ;)


Duck!

[Tharmas]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me. There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr. Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time. This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

I’m just dropping by quickly.

For those who want a quick reference to what Jim’s talking about with the “Walnut shale,” here’s a link to a chart that references the local names with the more accepted universal strata names.

http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/stratigraphy/stratigraphic_correlation_ae_large.htm

The Walnut is way down there corresponding to the Middle Albion. I know in Austin it’s about 25 meters think, total. Just above the Walnut is the Goodland, which I’ve spent many hours digging Amonites out of in west Fort Worth. I’ve personally lived in / walked / hunted this chalk-limestone landscape all my life. Never found a fish. I’ve found tons (probably literally) of calcified shells, dozens of shark’s teeth, and one Mosasaur vertebra, but that’s about it.

Now, I’ve known people to find fish, and in some cases almost complete calcified fossil skeletons. How you can tell what positions the gills were in I don’t know. But I’ve never found a fish myself.

Jim, if you know a spot around here, Texas or Oklahoma, where I could find “millions” of fossil fish please let me know. I can’t tell you how grateful the members of my paleo club would be.

Of course, all this chalk and limestone is itself composed of the bodies of microscopic critters, foraminifera; I’ve seen the electron microscope images. I forget the calculations about how many meters of sludge from the bottom of an ocean has to compress to make one meter of limestone or chalk.

And the funny thing is, all these critters, all the species of foraminifera in the chalk, all the species of fish, all the species of oysters and clams and crabs and ammonites, not to mention Mosasaurs, are all extinct. Not a single one of them is still around on the planet today.

It makes you think. At least, it makes me think. But not about Noah’s flood.

[Mageth]

Tharmas' post brings this up. Jim said:

fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr.

As, since Tharmas pointed out, the Walnut Shale is composed primarily of foraminifera, where's all that silt?

[Mech Bliss]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

That's what the angular unconformity and disconformities between the parallel strata are. They represent periods of erosion between strata.

Theres erosion there for sure but not near the level that should be there for the ages asserted to have been necessary for its deposition.

How do you know, or are you just pulling this out of your posterior (or rather Austin's)?

Also, the observations of Mt. St. Helens is not all pyroclastic volcanic ash and mud, much of it is layed out in stratas much like we see in the much larger GC depositions.

As I said before, this is just you saying "oh look, there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" It's a ridiculous analysis that doesn't even take into account even the most superficial observations of rock type, color, and texture, not to mention the more specific observations of sedimentary structures like cross bedding, trace fossils, and unconformities.

Until you can show the features I listed in my previous post in the Mt. St. Helens example, your comparison is baseless. Unless you can show us the limestone or cross bedded sandstone in the Mt. St. Helens example, you're not going to convince anyone who has taken Geology 101 or read a basic geology textbook (much less others who have a degree(s) in the field).

The Mt. St. Helens example is obviously far less complex than the Grand Canyon and not an appropriate analogue, as I illustrated with my list of only some of the features that one had that the other did not.

Maybe you should go there Mech Bliss or have you already been?

I have been to the Grand Canyon and have seen pictures of the Mt. St. Helens area in question. How anyone could call them comparable is beyond me. The only reason I can see is a desperation to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism while throwing away all evidence that one doesn't like. It's dishonest.

[Al Fresco]

Jim, how does the Flood scenario account for the observations from studies of the fossil record and geological column listed here (http://www.televar.com/~jnj/challenge.htm)?

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Mech Bliss


As I said before, this is just you saying "oh look, there's layering at Mt. St. Helens and there's layering at the Grand Canyon so they must be the same!" It's a ridiculous analysis that doesn't even take into account even the most superficial observations of rock type, color, and texture, not to mention the more specific observations of sedimentary structures like cross bedding, trace fossils, and unconformities.

The Mt. St. Helens example is obviously far less complex than the Grand Canyon and not an appropriate analogue, as I illustrated with my list of only some of the features that one had that the other did not.

I have been to the Grand Canyon and have seen pictures of the Mt. St. Helens area in question. How anyone could call them comparable is beyond me. The only reason I can see is a desperation to demonstrate the veracity of young earth creationism while throwing away all evidence that one doesn't like. It's dishonest.

You know Mech Bliss, I've not been anything but civil to you so why are you saying things like pulling things out of my you know what? :( Is what I'm saying hitting a nerve or something? Maybe you should chill out a little. The information I've gotten from my studies come from both the main stream and creationist sources. I'm not desparate to show anything, I've just observed some very interesting aspects of things that don't add up with the established conclusions.

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly. This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect. A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

Of course this shouldn't be anything new to you if you are indeed a geologist. BTW,experiments were done on several occasions that showed different gradients of silt and substrates can layer out very rapidly and don't neccessarily require long ages to layer out. The size and type of rocks shown in the GC only demonstrate a larger scale occurrence not a long one. Those rocks were at one time in a liquid state and would conform to the laws that made the sediments at Mt. St. Helens layer out rapidly. Fossils embedded in the strata could have been carried with the depositing sediments. The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

[budgie]

Jim, I'm somewhat confused by your assertion, a la Austin, that Mt St Helen's silt is the same consistancy as Grand Canyon rocks.

[Mageth]

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly. This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect. A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

I doubt if any geologists deny that sedimentation/layering can occur rapidly. However, it's also known that sedimentation/layering can, and does, occur very slowly, and at various rates between the two extremes.

And, as the process of sedimentation/layering observed at Mt. St. Helens is not at all the same as the processes that formed the strata of the GC, observations of that process do not cause the time required for the formation of strata of the GC to become "suspect".

The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

Since there is evidence in the GC of hundreds of millions of years of deposition and erosion, what the heck should it be?

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Mageth
[b]I doubt if any geologists deny that sedimentation/layering can occur rapidly. However, it's also known that sedimentation/layering can, and does, occur very slowly, and at various rates between the two extremes.

Since there is evidence in the GC of hundreds of millions of years of deposition and erosion, what the heck should it be?

The evidence of erosion that I believe they are concerned about is the lack of it in the stratas themselves, its really not what extreme time deposits should show. There is evidence of this type of erosion in the oldest know rocks called the shinzu shist (ms)and this is apparent. This is old rock indeed.

[MortalWombat]

Jim, I was wondering if you would care to explain how what is observed in the Grand Canyon can occur rapidly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science/grand-canyon.gif

Namely, how can you get the following ordering of events in a rapid manner:
The blue layers are deposited.
The blue layers are tilted and eroded.
The green layers are deposited.
The canyon is cut into the green and blue layers.
The lava flows occur.
Particularly the part in bold.

(Picture taken from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

[RufusAtticus]

"Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologists have known all along: that the lithospheric mantle underlying the Grand Canyon must be older than the Cardenas Basalt." (Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Jim, I was wondering if you would care to explain how what is observed in the Grand Canyon can occur rapidly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science/grand-canyon.gif

Namely, how can you get the following ordering of events in a rapid manner:
The blue layers are deposited.
The blue layers are tilted and eroded.
The green layers are deposited.
The canyon is cut into the green and blue layers.
The lava flows occur.
Particularly the part in bold.

(Picture taken from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html))

Theres obviously been a lot of dynamic forces that have shaped the depositions we call the Grand Canyon. I saw a special on the Learning Channel that discussed the mechanisms they thought may have caused the canyon itself. They have concluded the erosional effect of the colorado river is far from the only shaping force that defines its existence. The surrounding ground has risen as the river cut and the two forces shaped the majority of what we see. I believe this is probably accurate but I question the amount of time they say it took for this to happen.

Indeed its the time factor that this discussion is really all about. The same forces that has been concluded to have caused the canyon could have occurred much more rapidly than its ascribed to have happened in. I've already shown how layering in sedimentation can occurr much more rapidly than we have previously thought. The mind boggling forces of a global flood could account for a rapid cutting/erosion of such a structure as the GC. The rapid techtonic movement of subteranean plates could account for the terrain rising up. Speculation? Yes, possible ? Yes.

[Mech Bliss]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
You know Mech Bliss, I've not been anything but civil to you so why are you saying things like pulling things out of my you know what? :( Is what I'm saying hitting a nerve or something? Maybe you should chill out a little.

It's an expression and I'm simply calling you out on putting forth an assertion that you haven't backed up at all. You claim that there should be more erosion, but all you have is your say so to back it up. I've heard this assertion from creationists before and it's something they pull out of thin air (if you prefer that expression better).

I didn't say the Mt.St. Helens was anologous to the grand canyon I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly.

Geologists know that layering can occur quickly. The circumstances associated with Mt. St. Helens are completely different from the circumstances at the Grand Canyon. Austin's conclusion is an extremely superficial. As I said, he is merely stating that "look, there is layering at Mt. St. Helens and there is layering at the Grand Canyon so they are the same!" when they clearly are not. Austin makes superficial observations, draws a superficial conclusion, and neglects any real analysis here.

This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect.

Yet now you are trying to draw a comparison between Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon where one is not warrented. The fact that the layering that occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the result of a lahar does not bring into question the time it took for the formation of the strata of the Grand Canyon. They are completely different!

Again: Where at Mt. St. Helens did Austin observe a limestone forming rapidly like the Redwall Limestone? Where at Mt. St. Helens did Austin observe a cross bedded sandstone form rapidly like the Coconino Sandstone?

There are also things like fossils, trace fossils, and sedimentary structures that also indicate that the Mt. St. Helens example is IRRELEVANT. You have conveniently avoided those things I listed on the previous page every time even though they are relevant. The sedimentation at Mt. St. Helens is simple, that of the Grand Canyon is far more complex.

A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with.

A true scientist should also abandon falsified explanations like a worldwide flood being able to produce the Grand Canyon because of superficial, flawed observations of the situation at Mt. St. Helens.

Of course this shouldn't be anything new to you if you are indeed a geologist. BTW,experiments were done on several occasions that showed different gradients of silt and substrates can layer out very rapidly and don't neccessarily require long ages to layer out.

I have read about this experiment on a creationist website involving silica dust and sand being fed into a stream of water by a person. This is irrelevant. It ignores other processes that occur such as erosion, precipitation of chemical sediments, critters, and tectonic activity that produces angular unconformities like at the GC.

The size and type of rocks shown in the GC only demonstrate a larger scale occurrence not a long one.

Demonstrate this, then.

Those rocks were at one time in a liquid state and would conform to the laws that made the sediments at Mt. St. Helens layer out rapidly.

No, not a liquid state, but rather in suspension. You are still resorting to a superficial view of the rocks of the Grand Canyon despite me pointing out that it is far more complex than you are making it out to be. The sediments at Mt. St. Helens are not comparable to the types of sediments at the Grand Canyon. Where is the limestone at Mt. St. Helens, for example? Limestones don't form the same way that sandstones do. That's an obvious error in this analysis.

Fossils embedded in the strata could have been carried with the depositing sediments.

Except in a limestone which is not a clastic deposit. You are also neglecting animal burrows and animal tracks. After all, vertebrates probably weren't walking around on dry sand in the middle of the flood and then having their tracks covered. Also I don't suppose sand dunes would be forming in a desert during a catastrophic flood either. Yet those features exist.

The Grand Canyon is actually an excellent example of a disproof of the biblical flood.

The erosional evidence is not near what it should be either.

You keep saying it, but you don't say why. It's a claim pulled out of thin air.

[Jim Larmore]

Calcium carbonate or lime can be formed via suspensions that can solidify very rapid and I can prove this in yours or anyones lab.

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.

Tracks on the side of stratas only indicate to me that they were put there when the sediment was wet. After it solidified it could have been moved to a verticle plane via techtonic action.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.



Well, we'd love to see the citations for all kinds of assertions that you've made.

Man, I'm clueless on so much of science. I can't imagine going on about stuff telling professionals my idle thoughts are at par with a decades of professional training and experience.


Hey you guys - if the stuff we find on Mars matches bacteria we find here that is not evidence of common origin. It's common design.

[lpetrich]

[Jim Larmore:
I have never said today's geologists are a bunch of crack pots. I don't believe this !!!What I said is much of what they say is speculation . This speculation is based on present day measurements and observation. Not everyone has the same opinion of these varied speculations. ...

Why are you so certain that many of present-day geologists' conclusions are nothing but speculation? That is a very serious accusation.

That young-earth Flood Geologists have different conclusions is a non-argument; a good reason must be based on the nature of mainstream geologists' arguments.

Would you quote geocentrists in order to demonstrate that heliocentrism is pure speculation?

Would you quote flat-earthers in order to demonstrate that round-earthism is pure speculation?

Would you quote four-elements "chemistry" in order to demonstrate that modern chemistr is pure speculation?

If a global flood did happen the way the Bible says it did and massive quantities of subterranean water came up to flood the surface this would have destabilized the continental plates and "possibly" caused them to shift very rapidly. Like I have said once they got to going the momentum could have carried them long distances until they reached a point of stasis. This hypothesis is not new and it has never been disproven either.

That scenario has serious holes, like what happens to water when heated to the temperatures of the Earth's interior. And how it is more likely to make cracks in the Earth's surface than lubricate the bases of continents.

And also the nature of continental drift itself. Continents do NOT travel on top of oceanic crust; they lie in the middle of oceanic crust, and travel with it. Oceanic crust is produced in mid-oceanic ridges and is consumed in subduction zones. But are those processes also supposed to have a million times faster at some time in the past?

Its like the sedimentary layering I've already discussed. The research being done at the Mt.St. Helens eruption area is revealing similar sedimentary layers as we see in any cyclic sediments.

Except that volcanic deposits are drastically different from continental-shelf sediments in other respects.

Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility?

Why would the evidence be eroded away *everywhere*?

And this argument essentially states that most rock strata are NOT due to Noah's Flood.

One of the problems seen in the grand canyon is for it to be as old as it is you should see much more evidence of erosion in the stratas.

How do you determine how much erosion it ought to have?

I did say as has Dr. Autin is that it certainly shows how sedimentation and its associated layering can occurr very rapidly.

A totally irrelevant result.

This fact should make the time required of the stratas in the GC to become at least suspect.

The Grand Canyon is NOT dated by estimates of deposition time, but by radioisotope dating and stratigraphic correlation.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Saying it a 'MILLION TIMES" won't make it true Sven.
Yes, you're right. I'm getting far to emotional sometimes - but I think this is at least understandable... Hint: Claiming that the flood was possible a dozen times also won't make it so.

Let me explain again:
Over 150 years ago, Christian geologists set out for proving Noah's flood. But they found nothing of the evidence which they expected - they rather found evidence that the flood didn't happen. Being good scientists, most of them accepted this. Case closed.

Jim, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Once a theory is disproven, it is dead. Really dead. No resurrection here. Please give one example of a scientific theory (I mean modern science here, that is, approximately starting with Galileo) which was disproven by evidence and later revived. You don't realize this, but your argumentation for a global flood is equivalent to someone arguing that he found evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. I know you won't accept this, but your non-acceptance doesn't change this fact.

[snipped questions since others, who are much more knowledgeable, have dealt with them]

Have you ever done field research on your own to verify your peer review literature or do you just take them at their word?

Yes, I do. Why shouldn't I? I see peer review working in my field of science (chemistry), thus I see no reason why it shouldn't work in geology.


Well, I've done some field work on my own and I can tell you there is evidence of the flood and I've seen it so you saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous to me.

What is your education in geology? I just ask to verify the validity of this claim. Judging by the other posts in this thread, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about.


There is a stratum that covers at least two continents that shows evidence of the flood, in this stratum we see millions of fish fossils some with their gills distended as if they were gasping for oxygen, fish do this when the water they are caught in is laden with too much silt for good oxygen transferr.[...] This stratum is seen in the and under the walnut shale near the puluxy river in Texas and can be seen all over the south eastern US it picks back up again at or around the white cliffs of Dover on the European western shore. Much of Great Brittain is setting on this stratum.

Care to give a reference for this claim? Judging by the other posts in this thread, it seems to hold no water (pun intended).


Flood waters are very heavy in silt most of the time.

What leads to more questions...
(1) How do you know this also holds for Noah's flood? It was, after all, supernatural in origin.
(2) If you're right: How did any fish and all the other sea dwellers survive for about a year in water which is heavy in silt?

But you ignored so many questions in this (and other) thread - it'll be no problem for you to ignore these, too.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Have you ever considered the dynamic forces which shape our planetary crust?? Don't you think that evidence is destroyed over time or woiuld you at least consider this as a possibility?

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here.
Jim, do you realize that there is evidence in the geological column for many local (that is much smaller than global) floods? If geologists can find and identify this evidence, why on earth they shouldn't be able to find evidence for a global flood? For the evidence of a global flood to disappear so completely, this requires another miracle.

There are three options left:
(1) Most geologists are incompetent (hint: your "argument" about misidentification of evidence was already debunked)
(2) Your god doesn't want them to find evidence.
(3) The flood didn't happen.

Please decide for yourself which one is more likely - but you already seem to have concluded that (1) is true.

[Sven]

Hi Jim,

you repeatedly claimed that the evidence for creation, a flood, etc. is there, it is just misinterpreted. So, please, could you answer the following question honestly? I'm tempted to ask more specifically, but I wanted to keep the options as simple as possible.

Which is more likely to be misinterpreted?
(1) A few dozen verses out of an ancient book.
(2) Mountains of evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology.

Please think about this deeply before answering.

Sven

[Oolon Colluphid]

Just to make a couple of quick points:

1. Aren't we some way away from life on Mars now? Time for a new thread perhaps?

This occurred to me because of what I now want to ask Jim...

2. Jim, I’m now curious. You started just having concerns about abiogenesis, iirc. And now you’re sounding more like a full-blown creationist, with global floods and such. So, may I test just how ‘creationist’ you are please? I’d like to know whether you consider, not only a global bible-style flood to be true, but also that living things were saved by being on board a big boat? Do you believe that too?

Cheers, Oolon

[Sven]

Hey Oolon, I already suggested a couple of posts ago that this thread should be splitted. But nothing happened up to now...?

Anyway, I just wanted to direct the attention over there (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1403771#post1403771), to a post by chapka in the other thread on the flood. Nice summary, IMHO.

[hyzer]

Jim:

I really like Sven’s question . . . . .

I would imagine that you put a lot of stock in the bible as the word of god. Of course, supposed divine intervention or not, would you agree that it was still written by men, fallible men?

And of course, your position is that god created the earth. So who is closer to ascertaining the verity of the earth’s history – those that read from a book written by fallible men or those that actually study the “god-created” earth?

(spelliung edit)

[Sven]

Originally posted by hyzer
(spelliung edit)
LOL

[rlogan]

I think by hanging out here, Jim you've missed another really beneficial part of IIDB. There are some very knowledgable people over in BC&H. Also a couple of die hard literalists.

When you've come to understand that the flood myth was adapted from the more ancient epic of Gilgamesh then it will lose it's value as a historical tract and take on what it is supposed to be - a lesson.

I would add to sven's question that there is plenty of evidence - clay cuniform tablets in particular - that gilgamesh came first and one has to do more than ignore geological evidence in order to put forward the Genesis flood as history. You have to ignore the physical as well as textual evidence that the two flood stories that are merged together in Genesis are myths.

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Indeed its the time factor that this discussion is really all about. The same forces that has been concluded to have caused the canyon could have occurred much more rapidly than its ascribed to have happened in. I've already shown how layering in sedimentation can occurr much more rapidly than we have previously thought. The mind boggling forces of a global flood could account for a rapid cutting/erosion of such a structure as the GC. The rapid techtonic movement of subteranean plates could account for the terrain rising up. Speculation? Yes, possible ? Yes.I noticed you forgot to address the erosion of the subterranean plates, followed by continued layering (at a different angle) over these tilted, eroded layers.

If you are going to convince people that a global flood is responsible for all of the features of the Grand Canyon, you must address how it could:
[list=1] Lay down some layers
Cause them to harden (this is important for the next two to occur)
Tilt them
Erode the edges of those layers at an angle
Overlay more layers at a different angle than the first layers
Cut through all of these layers
Allow lava to flow over the edge of the canyon, harden, and form dams in at least thirteen places, at different times (source (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=21407))
Then erode through these hardened lava dams[/list=1]

.... All in a short period of time

[Mathetes]

Originally posted by rlogan
I think by hanging out here, Jim you've missed another really beneficial part of IIDB. There are some very knowledgable people over in BC&H.

Actually, Jim has been active in that forum also for the past months, and most likely he has encountered the Gilgamesh legend. He seems still convinced that the Bible story has some possibility of being true, but he also seems to have a genuine interest in learning. To me he looks honest, which is much more than you can say of the average creationist.

He will see the light some day. ;)

[Mech Bliss]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Calcium carbonate or lime can be formed via suspensions that can solidify very rapid and I can prove this in yours or anyones lab.

This is just as irrelevant as your alluding to experiments by Batten and Berthault. Of course if you do something like, say, take a solution and load it with dissolved calcium carbonate and raise the temperature, the mineral will form. Of course this is also oversimplified because it neglects the biogenic precipitation of limestone and the fact that there are different types of limestones that form under different conditions in different depositional environments. We can look today at locations like the Bahama Banks and see limestone analogous to the limestones of the Grand Canyon and we observe them forming in a shallow shelf environment at a rate on the order of centimeters per year. It's not a very rapid process to create limestone formations hundreds of meters thick while also taking into account erosion.

Furthermore, your assertion, which lacks any serious analysis as many have pointed out, denies the data compiled from biostratigraphy and radiometric dating as well. We not only have evidence of a non-continuous deposition of the strata and evidence that these strata are deposited slowly rather than rapidly, we also have other lines of evidence that corroborate the fact that a worldwide flood is not responsible for such a feature.

The statements concerning erosional concerns are ones of taking the literature at its word. I'll try to find the web site where I read this article that Dr. Austin made his statements about the lack of erosion in the stratas.

So it is really a claim pulled out of thin air? How is one to know how much erosion there is supposed to be especially when there is evidence of a great deal of erosion between the deposition of the different strata (angular unconformities, disconformities).

If anything, this evidence demonstrates that the Grand Canyon is not a catastrophically created feature because the sedimentary deposition was not continuous for several reasons already discussed.

I would not take people like Austin for their word, however. I know that creationists believe what they want to hear, but a serious geologist looking for serious explanations with more than a very superficial analysis would NOT be looking at a lahar deposit to learn about a feature like the Grand Canyon. He and his ilk, such as the AiG/ICR geologists like Snelling, are intellectually dishonest people. They are required to suppress any data that contradicts the claim of a 6,000 year old earth and a global flood. They cannot even consider it. Besides, it was even you who earlier said: "A true scientist should always be looking for new information to further enlighten himself with." People like Austin aren't looking for new information in an honest fashion. They aren't true scientists both by your standard and by mine.

Tracks on the side of stratas only indicate to me that they were put there when the sediment was wet. After it solidified it could have been moved to a verticle plane via techtonic action.

That makes little sense, first of all. Second, the trace fossils I was talking about were in a sandstone whose formation would have occurred in a very dry environment. The tracks and burrows indicate organisms that are suited so such an environment as well (that is to say, they are not marine or coastal). They were put there when the sediment was unconsolidated and preserved via lithification. Either way, these tracks should not exist in the first place if the deposition of the sediment in the Grand Canyon was continuous.

[Sven]

Originally posted by Mathetes
he also seems to have a genuine interest in learning. To me he looks honest, which is much more than you can say of the average creationist.

Yes, but he also has the bad habit to dodge/ignore questions - like most other creationists. :(

I don't expect he'll anwser my question above... Hey Jim! Prove me wrong!

[Roland98]

This thread has been split from this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74185) about life on Mars.

Roland98
E/C mod

[Asha'man]

Jim, a couple of really quick questions:

How old do you think the earth is?

When in this timeframe do you think the flood happened?

[Sven]

.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Sven
Hi Jim,

you repeatedly claimed that the evidence for creation, a flood, etc. is there, it is just misinterpreted. So, please, could you answer the following question honestly? I'm tempted to ask more specifically, but I wanted to keep the options as simple as possible.

Which is more likely to be misinterpreted?
(1) A few dozen verses out of an ancient book.
(2) Mountains of evidence from astronomy, geology, and biology.

Please think about this deeply before answering.

Sven

I think both you and I know the answer that is obvious here. Its much easier to "misrepresent" a few Bible verses than it is a mountain of latent physical evidence. However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally. Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

I haven't gone out on my field research work to look for evidence to proove or disproove the flood. I let the rocks say what they say. I am not a geologist but I've done some study on it specifically in the area of stratigraphy. I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers. I've seen the same thing in a picture of a whale standing on its tail and personally a few very large beavers and some bones that are vertabrate but I'm not sure of the species yet. I've seen and collected more invertabrate fossils than you can imagine.

It appears to me that the fossil record indicates a world wide spreading of aquatic life forms with rare but adequate number of vertabrates to show massive burials. I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time. I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood. I don't understand how we could be saying there is NO evidence for a global flood.

I don't understand why I see evidence of intentionally covering up or discrediting evidence for the sake of a theory. For instance, ( you asked for honesty did you not? ) in the puluxy river basin there is a ton of evidence that humans lived contemporaneously with the dinos , but if you look on the internet you will find scientific evidence that refutes and is discrediting. Some even accuse the creationist of carving some of these footprints in the river bed. You'll see where even the people that live in the area say they are faked and not real.

I've been there and looked at the prints myself. Some of them are hard to say if they are human or not but some are very obvious, they have the filangies trench the great toe the medial arch, to me they look just like real foot prints. Heck on some you can even see mud push up on the heel areas. I've seen where they did a cross section on the prints. The ones I've seen show lamination lines where pressure was applied. You won't get laminations in a carved print. All of this evidence is discredited however by main stream science.

I started out as an agnostic. I used to look at the world as a natural accident that just happens to have miraculous aspects to it. The holes in the theory have always been there and I have wondered about the inconsistencies in what I was seeing for a long time. When I was taking Chemistry and Physics in college I never questioned science at all but when I started studying the cell and how complicated life really is I started to really question how all of this could have occurred accidentally by fortuitous means with no intelligent input.

Theres a lot I don't know thats for sure. I can't answer many of your questions, you can call it dodging or what ever you want. I consider myself a scientist and I still wonder at all of God's creation, but I can't go about my life trying to make what I see fit into a theory that won't explain what I'm seeing for myself. If the evidence is there its there. Much of what the theory says does indeed show evidence to back it up but there is a "reasonable" amount of counter evidence to show its not all inclusive in explaning everything. If you want to say ok Jim your just saying God did it then thats ok, I don't mind, that won't take away my curiosity like many in science says it will. I think this is just an excuse to keep God out of the equation no matter how much we have to bend the rules.

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by hyzer
Jim:

I really like Sven’s question . . . . .

I would imagine that you put a lot of stock in the bible as the word of god. Of course, supposed divine intervention or not, would you agree that it was still written by men, fallible men?

And of course, your position is that god created the earth. So who is closer to ascertaining the verity of the earth’s history – those that read from a book written by fallible men or those that actually study the “god-created” earth?

(spelliung edit)

You know hyzer, I have to admit I see evidence of metaphyics on both sides of this thing. Anytime you have ad hoc tactics used by both sides who refuse to see whats real and is verifiable then you have a metaphysic indeed. Now I'll admit based on what I've seen it appears theres more manipulation on the creationist side than the other way around but both sides are guilty.

In answer to your question. I have never said I believe the Bible is inerrent. Its obvious its not , however I do see it as the inspired word of God and even though its not perfect its all we have outside of direct devine communication.

The last part of your question to me should be obvious, but it isn't. I would hope that the observers of this world would use empirical evidence only and be the guardians of knowledge. I believe for the most part this is true , however there are some instances that it isn't.

[Karalora]

However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally. Now, the accusation of men writing the Bible and making mistakes is well taken, except for the fact that Jesus Christ Himself spoke of the flood as a fact.

How do you know Jesus spoke of the flood as a fact? The only Biblical accounts of his life and his words are the Gospels, which were written by men as fallible as any other. Is it not possible that they misrecorded or misrepresented what Jesus said?

I've seen pictures of polystrate fossils that have stratas intersecting at or near 90 degree angles indicating a rapid sedimentation of the layers.

Of course rapid burial can occur; no one is denying that. That doesn't mean that every fossil we observe today was buried rapidly in a single worldwide flooding event.

I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time.

It tells me that every spot of land on Earth has been underwater at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the whole planet was underwater at the same time. (Actually, it probably was at one point, but if you found any fossils at all dating that far back, they certainly wouldn't be vertebrate fossils!)

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore


It appears to me that the fossil record indicates a world wide spreading of aquatic life forms with rare but adequate number of vertabrates to show massive burials. I haven't found hardly any place on this planet that I couldn't find fossils, they're every where. This tells me the whole globe was under water at one time. I have found in the austin chalk formation evidence of cretacous fossils and this strata goes clear to the east coast and then takes back up at the white cliffs of Dover, then down to northern Africa, this shows continental envolvement of this flood. I don't understand how we could be saying there is NO evidence for a global flood.


What is chalk? (http://www.chichester.gov.uk/museum/tl0100.htm)


Chalk is a very pure form of limestone composed of countless millions of the minute calcareous skeletons of coccoliths, a form of algae.


So is a fossil 'buried' in chalk evidence of a sudden flood?

hw

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Karalora
How do you know Jesus spoke of the flood as a fact? The only Biblical accounts of his life and his words are the Gospels, which were written by men as fallible as any other. Is it not possible that they misrecorded or misrepresented what Jesus said?

BASED ON WHAT I'VE STUDIED THE ACCEPTED STANCE IS THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AS CLOSE TO WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AS WE HAVE, MOST SCHOLARS BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BIBLE. THIS IS WHY MANY ARCHEOLOGIST USE THE BIBLE TO HELP THEM DECIDE WHERE TO MAKE A DIG. ASIDE FROM THAT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN MANY PEOPLE OF THE DAY WERE ALIVE WHEN THE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED OCCURRED. IF IT WAS IN ERROR THEY WOULD HAVE POINTED IT OUT. I BELIEVE JESUS SAID WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS HE SAID ABOUT THE FLOOD.

Of course rapid burial can occur; no one is denying that. That doesn't mean that every fossil we observe today was buried rapidly in a single worldwide flooding event.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS WHAT IT SHOWS, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO THE PETRIFIED FORREST IN ARIZONA? HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ON A DIG WHERE THERE WERE A LARGE AMOUNT OF FOSSILS BURIED? EVERY TIME I SEE THESE THINGS I THINK OF WHAT I SEE RIGHT AFTER A FLOOD. GO ON TOP OF ABOUT ANY MOUNTAIN AND LOOK AROUND, IF THERE ARE A LOT OF FOSSILS THERE LOOK AT HOW THEY ARE LYING AROUND, HOW THEY ARE PLACED, I KNOW MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEY WERE DEPOSITED TO MOVE THEM AROUND LIKE PLATE TECHTONICS ETC. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE SCATTERING EFFECT OF MANY FORCES. THINK BACK TO WHEN YOU LAST OBSERVED A MODERN FLOOD'S AFTERMATH. INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF DON'T TAKE WHAT YOU READ OUT OF A BOOK AS THE LAST WORD. DO YOUR OWN THINKING AND ANALYZING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PHD IN GEOLOGY TO LOGICALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.


It tells me that every spot of land on Earth has been underwater at one time or another. That doesn't mean that the whole planet was underwater at the same time. (Actually, it probably was at one point, but if you found any fossils at all dating that far back, they certainly wouldn't be vertebrate fossils!)

THERE IS FEASIBILITY ON BOTH SIDES AND EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES. I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

[hyzer]

Jim:

There is lots of geological evidence for floods. There is zero evidence for a global flood.

If there had been a global flood we should see a massive jumble of fossils of ALL species in the exact same location in the geological column at all locations. We don’t. Compare this with the thin line of iridium from the meteor that (most likely) ended the run of the dinosaurs. Thin line of iridium in the exact same place in the geological column – yes, found all around the globe. Massive jumble of fossils in the exact same place in the geographic column – never found.

Fossils of sea creatures on mountain tops is evidence of plate tectonics, not a global flood.

Paleontologists have never found human fossils with dinosaur fossils – why do you think that is? In fact, fossils beds are amazing (unless acted upon by plate tectonics) the older fossils are ALWAYS deeper than the younger fossils.

(edit to change geographic to geological)

[Karalora]

BASED ON WHAT I'VE STUDIED THE ACCEPTED STANCE IS THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AS CLOSE TO WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AS WE HAVE, MOST SCHOLARS BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE BIBLE.

Which historical account of Jesus' life do the scholars believe? The Gospel authors disagree on several points, especially the details of Jesus' birth and death. If they can't even agree on landmark events like that, I see no reason to consider them accurate historians.

EVERY TIME I SEE THESE THINGS I THINK OF WHAT I SEE RIGHT AFTER A FLOOD.

No shit, Sherlock--floods happen. (There's one happening in my apartment as I type this, although it is unlikely to result in many fossils as it is localized to the bathroom plumbing.) A damn lot of the fossils we observe are the result of floods swamping and burying animal and plant life. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE ALL THE RESULT OF A SINGULAR WORLDWIDE EVENT. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. (Two can play at the all-caps game.)

I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MEANT BY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD WHEN WE CAN OBSERVE FLOOD LIKE DEBRIS LOOKING FOSSILS ALL OVER OUR PLANET.

The flooding evidences in different areas are not contemporaneous with each other. If New York hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1950 but those from London and Beijing do not, and London hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1970 but those from New York and Beijing do not, and Beijing hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1990 bit those from New York and London do not, we can safely conclude that there was no worldwide influenza epidemic in any of those three years--only a localized epidemic for each.

[RufusAtticus]

Mod Message:

Damn it, people, quit shouting and behave!

[budgie]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
Aside from that you have to remember the gospels were written at a time when many people of the day were alive when the account of what happened occurred.

Only as early as 70 years after Jesus died. Not even the same generation. But this belongs in BCH.

The global flood of Noah never occurredd. That conclusion was definately decided over 300 years ago. By a christian.

-jim

[simian]

Jim,

This is a serious question, and one I ask of all who state what is in the bible is literal truth:

Presumably what is recorded in the bible as happening to Jesus is literally true. Jesus, as the main character (from the Christian viewpoint), is the one whom the truth must be told about. The things that happened to him must be literally true. You seem willing to believe that Jesus believed in a world-wide flood.

In that light please explain Matthew 4:8-9
Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Jesus is taken to a high mountain and is shown all the kingdoms of the world. Modern science says there are kingdoms beyond the horizon. Is science wrong and the world really either flat or bowl shaped?

Please, no "adding to or taking away from" the words of the bible.

Simian

[Jim Larmore]

Originally posted by Karalora
Which historical account of Jesus' life do the scholars believe? The Gospel authors disagree on several points, especially the details of Jesus' birth and death. If they can't even agree on landmark events like that, I see no reason to consider them accurate historians.

THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERING ACCOUNTS BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER. ITS LIKE YOU AND I SEEING THE SAME ACCIDENT FROM DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STREET (THIS GOES BACK TO MY COP DAYS ) YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE SAME ACCIDENT LIKE WHO ENTERED THE INTERSECTION FIRST ETC. BUT THE JEST OF IT IS THE SAME. ITS THE SAME WITH THE GOSPELS. BTW, IF YOU DON'T SEE THEM AS ACCURATE HISTORIANS THEN YOU'D BE IN A MINORITY WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHEOLOGIST.

No shit, Sherlock--floods happen. (There's one happening in my apartment as I type this, although it is unlikely to result in many fossils as it is localized to the bathroom plumbing.) A damn lot of the fossils we observe are the result of floods swamping and burying animal and plant life. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE ALL THE RESULT OF A SINGULAR WORLDWIDE EVENT. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. (Two can play at the all-caps game.)

IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE'T EITHER. AS FAR AS STRATAS GO THERES IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT DID HAPPEN,


The flooding evidences in different areas are not contemporaneous with each other. If New York hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1950 but those from London and Beijing do not, and London hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1970 but those from New York and Beijing do not, and Beijing hospital records show an unusually high number of influenza cases in 1990 bit those from New York and London do not, we can safely conclude that there was no worldwide influenza epidemic in any of those three years--only a localized epidemic for each.

THE FACTS ARE THE ENTIRE WORLD SHOWS EVIDENCE OF A COVERING OF WATER THAT CAN'T BE DENIED, WHETHER IT HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME OR NOT IS DEBATEABLE. I THINK IT DID, YOU DON'T , YOU CAN'T PROOVE THE EVIDENCE IS NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS BASED ON THE OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. DATING ROCKS IS NOT A GOOD SCIENCE, THE ROCKS ARE DATED BY THE FOSSILS THEY CONTAIN AND THE FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY ARE F0UND IN. SOUNDS CIRCULAR TO ME AND NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROOVE ANYTHING AT ALL. NOW YOU TELL ME BASED ON THIS FACT HOW YOU CAN SAY THEY ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore DATING ROCKS IS NOT A GOOD SCIENCE, THE ROCKS ARE DATED BY THE FOSSILS THEY CONTAIN AND THE FOSSILS ARE DATED BY THE ROCKS THEY ARE F0UND IN. SOUNDS CIRCULAR TO ME AND NOT A GOOD WAY TO PROOVE ANYTHING AT ALL. NOW YOU TELL ME BASED ON THIS FACT HOW YOU CAN SAY THEY ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS


Now there, Jim. You know very well that radiometric dating is used to date rocks. Here is a little piece by the U.S. Geologic survey that contains the relationship between radioactive decay and geologic time:

USGS Radiometric Tme Scale (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html)

I believe this has been pointed out to you before. It is patently false to say what you have said here about the circularity of dating rocks and fossils.

I've noticed a complete lack of citations in your postings Jim, even where you are backing yourself up with the Bible. Matthew 24:37-39 is probably what you are referring to. He does not say that the flood is literally true. No more so than when one refers to the goose that laid the golden eggs. You really have to strain to take that out of context and distort things to pretend he is saying the flood is literally true.

[Al Fresco]

Jim, how does the Flood scenario account for the observations from fossil record, geologic column, biogeographic, and age dating studies presented here (http://www.televar.com/~jnj/challenge.htm)?

[Sven]

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I think both you and I know the answer that is obvious here. Its much easier to "misrepresent" a few Bible verses than it is a mountain of latent physical evidence.

And from your other post:

I have never said I believe the Bible is inerrent. Its obvious its not

At least there's something we can agree on! :)
You only have to go one step further and accept that the bible is totally unreliable as a science book.


However ,the Bible speaks of a world wide flood and it says it in a way to be taken literally.

How you determine this? And even if you're right - there's always the very likely scenario that the men who wrote t