Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's?

I thought it would be interesting if wmscott, TC, TB, and ? could have a topic to themselves, to try to come up with a unified flood model. Certainly, the evolution side could monitor the proceedings, but stay away from injecting any comments.Also, I find it to be an ongoing problem, to know if a creationist is taking a young age or an old age stance. wmscott seems to be OA, TB is YA, and TC is YA(?). Might you creationists put a YAC or an OAC into your signature?I find that I must assume YAC, unless some clear information indicates otherwise.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

The evolving but 'almost standard' empirically fitted YEC flood model
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to Morris/Baumgardner/Snelling/Austin/Walker et al. Put in jargon free terms by TB. Apologies for inaccuracies and simplifications to the above people.The approximately Precambrian sedimentary rocks were generated during the creation week when the land came up out of the sea presumably through some tectonic process. For me only it was a 7000 year 'week' for scriptual reasons but this does help explain the creation week deposition.The approximately Paleozic/Mesozoic and probably some of the Cenozoic were laid down during the 400 days of the flood in around 2500 BC and in the decades following.The flood was triggered by a possibly universal impulse of accelerated radioisoptoic decay governed by evolving universal constants such as e, c and h, and some more obscure weak-interaction constants. This generated vast crustal and deep heat that instigated rapid sea-floor spreading and continental plate drift. This generated vast quantities of steam that fell as 40 days of rain. Associated subsidences (vertical drops) of continental plates generated marine innundations that deposited much of the geological column. Due to frictional plate slipping these innundations occurred as rapid surges. Alternating, and mixed, marine and non-marine beds formed under fast curents with intervenning calms during which silts and shales formed in shallow seas and temporary new land based habitats were created at different levels. Ultimately the entire earth was covered up to the highest (but lower than today's) mountains.As a result of crustal cooling the flood eventually subsided carving out both large and small features from the recently formed beds. Enormous amounts of ash in the atmosphere generated during the tectonic processes generated a nuclear winter scenario. This triggered rapid ice ages and equally rapid glacial melting as the ash subsided. The continental drift exponentially deaccelerated due to crustal cooling.This empirical scenario is qualitatively consistent with the distribution and patterns of marine and non-marine beds, sea-level curves, paleocurrents, 3D topography, sea-floor spreading, paleomagentism, radiodecay and gross features of the fossil record. The extent to which these issues can be quantiatviely modeled remains to be seen although early models show promise.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

Forgive me for the summarization but I hit the back button and it was not saved in my temp file.--Precambrian strata and rock were created in the beginnings of the creation week. Direct time-frame is undecided. 3 days or thousands of years. The continental crust was the product of chemical fractionation of the rock that comprises at least the upper third, and perhaps even more, of the earth's mantle. Continental crust is the product of partial melting of less differentiated rock. Baumgardner argues that water plays an important role in the process and that it may account for the fact that no other planetary body in the solar system seems to have this type of rock. The distribution of lithophilic, siderophilic, and chalcophilic elements help construct a model for early chemical fractionation of incompatible elements through the mantles rapid convection and heat loss. This geochemical process also plays a roll in the veracity of radioisotopic dating and distribution of isotopes in the earths crust and mantle.
--I previously argued that flood deposits were Cambrian --> Tertiary, however I am currently leaning toward a different model: Cambrian through Cretaceous as directly Flood deposited with the possible exception of some of the Paleocene and Eocene Epochs. The rest of the Tertiary period is deposited during the floods abating on through toward the quarternary rocks which are in the majority post flood all together with the possible exception of some of the Pleistocene rocks.--The flood occured around 2800-2500BC.--Tectonic activity gained rigour soon hitting its peak in the beginnings of the Flood from the effects of increased speed for mantle convection. This was due to the possible mechanism of accelerated radioactive decay expelling energy in the form of heat. As an effect, Sea-floor spreading and volcanism increased in effect globally and existing ice caps melted. Precipitation increased dramatically with cloud formations world wide. Volcanic and Meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Various ocean depth anomalies in periods of marine surges were caused by ocean volcanism and subduction earthquakes as well as meteoric impacts.
--Increased precipitation would in turn produce haloclinic seas, which would concentrate salinity contents towards higher depths. [Haliocenic seas, that is, a halocline would be produced, (though more profoundly at higher latitudes) which is the depth at which the salinity changes rapidly; it forms the boundary between the two layers.]
--The orogenic processes as a cause of catastrophic sea-floor spreading generated mountain ranges such as the Rockies, Alps, and the Himalayas. Dust particle nuclei in the lower atmosphere would have been cleaned out by precipitation. Buildup of volcanic and other dust sources in the high atmosphere would have contributed toward a global nuclear winter which began elevating in effect toward the end of the Mesozoic. Late Mesozoic deposition would have slowed, by the end of the cretaceous, deposits would have practically ceased for some time as iridium concentrated in a fine layer at the K-T boundary. Flood waters abated off the continents coherently with the elevating Ice Age producing glaciers and polar ice caps. Varying hypsographic conditions would have entombed areas on the continents with lakes which may have later emptied creating a diversity in geologic formations.
--Deceleration of mantle convection in-turn effected tectonic continental drift due to heat loss.
--Just my thoughts on the event, very similar to Tranquillity.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-01-2002]

Your thoughts on a Creationists only thread shadows my previous suggestion a bit: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=14&p=1------------------

My suggestion was probably subconsciously to consciously influenced by yours. I didn't intend this topic to be it. Would you like me to be the one to start the new topic? How about "Creationists Only -Flood discussion". And then put the look but don't touch message to the evolution side in the opening message.Moose

Hey - what are you doing here? Out you go! [TB pushes Moose out the door and double bolts it]

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

Hey, this is just the topic, suggesting a possible new topic.Reminds me of the story from the MASH television series:Radar was trying to get Henry Blake to sign the forms to give a lamb a discharge from the army, to save it from becoming dinner. When Henry asked Radar about what he was signing Radar replied "This is the form that gets us the forms that enables us to order more forms". Or something like that.Moose

Aah - I see this is just a thread that suggests new threads. I wish I'd posted a preview thread which suggested we have a thread like this. That's like some supervisors I've heard of that have meetings the primary purpose of which is to work out when next to have a meeting. Your thread title doens't really support your claim however.Ok - you've got it in the suggestions forum. Fair enough.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

TCIt is clear that you and I agee to a large extent partly becasue our models are essentially that of ICR/AIG creationists, partly becasue we are both YECs and partly (IMO) becasue the data empirically requires this type of explanation.Comments/questions:Interesting about the unique nature of continental rock in the solar system. Is there a mainstream ref for this? Goes along very nicely with the whole 'created by and from water' thing (2 Pet 3). Mars of course had water too we have to remember.Tell me a little about 'chemical fractination' of the bedrock. What do you mean by 'This geochemical process also plays a roll in the veracity of radioisotopic dating'. I find it an intgeresting idea that the isotopes distibutions were/are not random and were designed to enable the insitigation of the creation day 3 event and the flood.What exactly leads you to identify the rising flood up to the Eocene and the abating up to the early Pleistocene? Obviously the Pleistocene ice ages are post flood.What do you mean by 'volcanic and meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas'. Did these particles trigger nucleation and condensation? What significance/purpose does the K/T impact have in a Biblical flood model (other than that above)? That is, in our simplistic model it has no purpose unlike the radiogenic heating. I suspect a purpose will emerge. Do you propose that the solar system cratering happened primarily during the flood? I tend to link this cratering with marring of the creation including the moon which typifies Christ but I'm no expert on it.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

"It is clear that you and I agee to a large extent partly becasue our models are essentially that of ICR/AIG creationists, partly becasue we are both YECs and partly (IMO) becasue the data empirically requires this type of explanation."
--Yes something along that line we would agree. The majority of what I conjure up is based on or finds its origin in another creationists thoughts and/or findings. Others are just relevant questions I attempt to answer in a Young earths framework based on my readings of the mainstream text. I read tediously little work done by creationists compared to the mainstream. My work and thoughts compiled regarding the flood are, for instance, based on the works of Austin, Snelling, and Baumgardner. However, I even still, have yet to read Baumgardners 1994(?) articles presented at the ICC for his theory on catastrophic plate tectonics. I simply took his hypothesis that tectonic activity was greatly catastrophic and rapid sea-floor spreading. Then by my mainstream findings, attempted to compile constraints, time-frames, and how it effected orogenic construction, etc."Interesting about the unique nature of continental rock in the solar system. Is there a mainstream ref for this? Goes along very nicely with the whole 'created by and from water' thing (2 Pet 3). Mars of course had water too we have to remember."
--Yes it certainly did. Though its origin could possibly be foreign of the planet. Say, for instance, cemetery or some other mass. That's just a quick thought though without too much of a veracious basis. Solar position would at first thought seem more feasible.
--Unfortunately I'm unaware of an exact mechanism by which water was first created or brought forth on the earth to think further on that. The rate book is where Baumgardners claim can be found, If mind serves me right you have a copy or have access to it, Page 50.
--He doesn't give a direct source regarding the role of water, and a glance at his reference list makes almost all of them likely candidates. While I find it interesting as well, I am at a loss as to where this thought is founded off of. He may want to expand a bit on this in the upcoming results in 2005."Tell me a little about 'chemical fractination' of the bedrock. What do you mean by 'This geochemical process also plays a roll in the veracity of radioisotopic dating'. I find it an intgeresting idea that the isotopes distibutions were/are not random and were designed to enable the insitigation of the creation day 3 event and the flood."
--Yes the geochemical processes in the mantle may play an increasingly large role in the distribution of radioisotopes in the crust. Catastrophic plate tectonics predicts at least that the Cambrian+ sediments were produced during a short period of time as well as that today's orogenic developments and the topography generated by the activity was produced by it. We obviously see a relatively linear flow in the loss of parent isotopes as you increase in depth in the earth. We also see the same linear observation in sea-floor crust spreading outward from sea-floor spreading regions. There was some mechanism which as mantle materials were extruded out from inside the earth that lessening amounts of isotopes are found in older materials than newer ones.
--Of course the majority of chemical fractionation of continental plates were formed in pre-Cambrian rocks which we attribute to the first few creation days or spans of time so we would expect essentially higher magnitudes of anomalies in isotopic compositions than more recent materials/Cambrian+ rock.
--While the initial distribution of isotopes are particularly vague the further you back into the formation of the earth and mantle, we know that it has undergone this process of sorting of isotopes according to their tendency of concentration whether it be the atmosphere, the silicate earth, or the earths core etc."What exactly leads you to identify the rising flood up to the Eocene and the abating up to the early Pleistocene? Obviously the Pleistocene ice ages are post flood."
--I think that the distribution of fossils and their sequential order through the geologic column plays a significance in when and where in the column specific events took place such as the ice age, volcanism and flood water inundations. I might have been a little messy with my comment on rising and abating flood rocks markers. Though I can fully agree that Pleistocene ice ages are post flood, just how post-flood they are I leave a little bit of a question mark. I give rising floods lee-way up to the Eocene but I mark the K-T boundary as the climax of the flood and while technically only abating occurred after that. Periods of inundation would still have occurred after the K-T boundary. I was a bit flighty on these these thoughts."What do you mean by 'volcanic and meteoric impact particle nuclei shielded the earth from becoming a global pressure cooker as water vapor is a greenhouse gas'. Did these particles trigger nucleation and condensation?"
--Yes they did, these particles acted as cloud condensation nuclei in the surrounding lower atmosphere though the 'cleaning' ability by this mechanism wouldn't have occurred with as much rigour in the higher atmosphere. This is appealing because we not only have a latter ice age, but we also do not have a global pressure cooker, as it blocked many cosmogenic rays which would have been absorbed by the water vapor below, making an ice age and a nuclear winter a bit of a problem."What significance/purpose does the K/T impact have in a Biblical flood model (other than that above)? That is, in our simplistic model it has no purpose unlike the radiogenic heating."
--I don't think that it would be degraded to being futile, it does have, in my opinion, a very large significance. the clay layer with a high count of iridium is significant because this may indicate a period where there was no sedimentation, pretty much globally."I suspect a purpose will emerge. Do you propose that the solar system cratering happened primarily during the flood? I tend to link this cratering with marring of the creation including the moon which typifies Christ but I'm no expert on it."
--I would attribute much of the cratering toward the time-span of the flood. Although I wouldn't doubt that most of it may have been due to the creation, most of this record has been erased on the earth though.------------------

Just a little something extra I've found, some comments on the significance of water in early crustal evolution by Samuel A. Bowring and Todd Housh. http://thermo.gg.utk.edu/tl_docs/Courses/Ge475/Bowring/Bowring.html

quote:

---

Tonalites and trondhjemites are commonly viewed as the primary components of early Archean crust. Campbell and Taylor (49) pointed our that Earth is the only planet with both extensive sialic crust and water, which suggested to them a direct relation between oceans and continents in which water is necessary to form large volumes of tonalitic to trondhjemitic rocks, perhaps by melting of the hydrated slab during subduction. In fact, the production of early Archean tonalites and trondhjemites by slab melting is a critical component of some models for the generation of Archean crust (39, 50). The intermediate-to-granitic composition of the Acasta gneisses also indicates that water plays an important role in their origin (49); however, the data suggest that the gneisses were derived, in large part, by intracrustal reprocessing involving both mantle-derived magmas or juvenile crust (or both), and older, hydrated mafic crust (45). Other areas for which a similar model is suggested include the Amitsoq gneisses (54), 3.1-Ga tonalitic gneisses from Finland (53), 3.4-Ga gneisses from Wyoming (57), and Archean tonalitic and trondhjemitic gneisses from Labrador (58). The geochemical and isotopic evidence presented in these examples is equally consistent with the production of Archean tonalite-trondhjemite suites as a result of mixing mantle melts and older crust.

---

--Sorry about the lack in commentary, I'm still in the midst of reading the essay.------------------