Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Plate tectonics, mountain building, and the Flood
John Solum
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 159 (29208)
01-15-2003 5:16 PM


On the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy board a discussion about plate tectonics and the Flood has started as part of another thread. Since this seems to be more of a Geology and the Great Flood kind of topic, I’m starting a thread on it here.
From this thread:
http://EvC Forum: Noah's Ark -->EvC Forum: Noah's Ark
Tranquility Base:
The Earth could have been covered by the ocean prior to the major mountain uplifts. In the Biblical creationist scenario we believe the mountain building (as it is called mainstream) and continental drift occurred during the flood. Hence at some point of the flood year there could have been a 100% covering.
The problem here is that you can’t point to a time during earth’s history when there haven’t been mountains. For example, there was a major worldwide episode of mountain building during the late Precambrian (from ~1.2-1.0 billion years ago). There are remnants of event older mountain building events in the earlier parts of the Precambrian. This poses a pretty big problem for your attempt to lump mountain building events and continental drift into a single Flood-related event.
Tranquility Base:
Mainstream the largest sea-level changes are explained as due to the tectonic movements that occurred suring continetnal drift and 'sea-floor spreading'. Glacial formation/melting results in lower sea-level changes. So for creaitonists we are left having to explain how to get rapid tectonic effects. We believe that radiodecay was accelerated releasing a lot of heat and sending the continental and sea-floor plates into a runaway state. this has been simulated on computer by a mainstream expert who also happens to believe the flood was a recent event. This runaway effect can yield plate velocities sufficent to generate the observed break-up of Pangea over a matter of years.
Based on your comments about Pangea here you want to attribute the break up of Pangea to the flood. So pre-Pangea would be equivalent to pre-Flood and post-Pangea would be equivalent to post-Flood. Your comments also leave me with the impression that you’re stating that Pangea was the original configuration of the continents. In other words, when the continents were created, they were created as Pangea, and they stayed that way until the Flood, when they broke apart to give us the distribution of continents that we see today. If I’ve mischaracterized your views, feel free to correct me.
The problem here is that Pangea is not the original configuration of the continents, and plate tectonics did not start with Pangea. Pangea was assembled toward the end of the Paleozoic Era as smaller landmasses collided. The Appalachian Mountains are the result of one of these collisions. So, before Pangea existed, the continents were distributed around the earth. Before that, in the Late Precambrian, the continents were again in a supercontinent configuration (this supercontinent is called Rodinia). The 1.2-1.0 billion year old mountain building event that I mentioned at the start of this post formed as a result of the assembly of this supercontinent, just as the Appalachians formed as a result of the assembly of Pangea. There were likely other supercontinents before Rodinia, and there were certainly pre-Rodinia mountain building events. For example, there are remnants of a 3.0 billion year old continental collision in part of the Canadian Shield (the oldest mountain building event that I know of).
The point is that the break up of Pangea wasn’t an unusual event in Earth’s history, the continents have been in motion since at least 3 billion years ago; plates have been colliding and breaking apart throughout Earth’s history. The plates have been in motion since Pangea broke apart too, for example, the Alps and the Himalayas both formed after the breakup of Pangea. So not only were the plates in motion before Pangea was assembled, they’ve been in motion since Pangea broke apart, and they’re still moving. This is another indication that tectonic motion doesn’t represent anything unusual in Earth’s history, as it should if tectonic motion is due to a one-time event like the Flood.
The important points are:
1) The position that the earth had less topography before the flood can’t be supported because there have been mountain building events throughout Earth’s history.
2) Tectonic motion doesn’t represent anything unusual in Earth’s history, it’s been occurring throughout the last 3 billion years of Earth’s history, and it’s occurring today.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-15-2003 5:44 PM John Solum has not replied
 Message 3 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 2:53 AM John Solum has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 159 (29214)
01-15-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Solum
01-15-2003 5:16 PM


John S
The problem here is that you can’t point to a time during earth’s history when there haven’t been mountains.
You're quite right that this puts a severe constrint on when the flood peak occurred. I simply haven't done the research, and am unaware of whether any creationists have done it yet. This work should be done, agreed, but I'm not preprared to accept a blanket statement that there was never a period when the Earth wasn't sufficently flat to be covered by the exisiting water. As usual in this debate there is no simple resource to find the answer because the issue is simply not one of specific interest to mainstream researchers.
The ocean basins would also have been shallower than mainstream science predicts. During catastrophic spreading and drift the hot newly created sea-floor would have risen.
For example, there was a major worldwide episode of mountain building during the late Precambrian (from ~1.2-1.0 billion years ago).
Yes, but how high were these mountains? Who says that they weren't all below 3000 feet for example? I'm not saying they were but it's something that needs to be researched.
Based on your comments about Pangea here you want to attribute the break up of Pangea to the flood. So pre-Pangea would be equivalent to pre-Flood and post-Pangea would be equivalent to post-Flood. Your comments also leave me with the impression that you’re stating that Pangea was the original configuration of the continents. In other words, when the continents were created, they were created as Pangea, and they stayed that way until the Flood, when they broke apart to give us the distribution of continents that we see today. If I’ve mischaracterized your views, feel free to correct me.
No, I agree with the mainstream observatons that Pangea itself was formed during what we would call the flood as well as its break-up. I was simply highlighting the most well known event of plate tectonics (Pangea break-up).
The problem here is that Pangea is not the original configuration of the continents, and plate tectonics did not start with Pangea.
Agreed.
There were likely other supercontinents before Rodinia, and there were certainly pre-Rodinia mountain building events. For example, there are remnants of a 3.0 billion year old continental collision in part of the Canadian Shield (the oldest mountain building event that I know of).
All possibly true but its certinaty becomes less and less eliable the further we go back. We need to study what the actual heights and timing of all of the montain ranges were.
This is another indication that tectonic motion doesn’t represent anything unusual in Earth’s history, as it should if tectonic motion is due to a one-time event like the Flood.
We also put down the creation day-3 event (where the land came up out of the sea) to a catastrophic tectonic event, probably also triggered by accelerated radiodecay.
1) The position that the earth had less topography before the flood can’t be supported because there have been mountain building events throughout Earth’s history.
There may be a window during which it was possible to cover the Earth. I ahven't seen any data in your posts about the heights of ancient mountain ranges.
Tectonic motion doesn’t represent anything unusual in Earth’s history, it’s been occurring throughout the last 3 billion years of Earth’s history, and it’s occurring today.
Agreed with the proviso of the creationist time scale.
Thanks for keeping us honest John. Our scenario is quite falsifiable which is a good thing. But we'll have to do more work than these posts to falsify this falisfiable claim.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Solum, posted 01-15-2003 5:16 PM John Solum has not replied

LRP
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 159 (29245)
01-16-2003 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Solum
01-15-2003 5:16 PM


According to the Bible a near circular supercontinent (called 'Earth' in the Bible but probably 'Pangaea' by mainstream scientists) was formed a long time (several thousand of years)before
the time of the first known (biblically) man. Again according to scriptures this supercontinent was formed in a single day as the result of a crashed planetissimal. Prior to this crash the Earth had its shell of basaltic rock (now recognized as 'the plates') which the bible calls 'the foundations'. The spread out crashed planetissimal remained near circular but subject to oscillations in and out of the global ocean that then covered the planet. The last oscillation out of the global ocean (again according to the bible) was only about 6000 years ago. This supercontinet did not break up
until 120 years or so after the Flood-again according to the bible.
The breaking up of the plates are also referred to in the Bible-centuries before man discovered this.
To understand why the superconinent had to be formed in the way it was and subsequently broke up is a very long story. I have had it published for anyone that may be interested

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Solum, posted 01-15-2003 5:16 PM John Solum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 01-16-2003 9:53 AM LRP has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 159 (29259)
01-16-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by LRP
01-16-2003 2:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by LRP:
According to the Bible a near circular supercontinent (called 'Earth' in the Bible but probably 'Pangaea' by mainstream scientists) was formed a long time (several thousand of years)before
the time of the first known (biblically) man.

Unless you are talking about Gen. 1, please cite your sources. Until further notice, I assume you are a day-age person.
quote:
Again according to scriptures this supercontinent was formed in a single day as the result of a crashed planetissimal.
What scripture? And have you any idea what such a crash would do to the Earth? Last time it made the moon.
quote:
Prior to this crash the Earth had its shell of basaltic rock (now recognized as 'the plates') which the bible calls 'the foundations'.
Interesting.
quote:
The spread out crashed planetissimal remained near circular but subject to oscillations in and out of the global ocean that then covered the planet.
But crashed planetissimals don't spread out and make continents. They melt everything and through stuff into space, leaving a big hole in the ground, basically. The dynamics of what you propose are unworkable.
Plus, there would be distinctive chemical signatures had this happened.
quote:
The last oscillation out of the global ocean (again according to the bible) was only about 6000 years ago.
What?
quote:
This supercontinet did not break up
until 120 years or so after the Flood-again according to the bible.

4-6 thousand years ago? So the plates are moving half a mile a year, maybe? Don't you think we could measure this? Don't you think someone would have noticed?
quote:
The breaking up of the plates are also referred to in the Bible-centuries before man discovered this.
We didn't notice because the plates mve vastly more slowly than than you propose. At any rate, I think the Chinese had some understanding of this thousands of years before the west.
quote:
To understand why the superconinent had to be formed in the way it was and subsequently broke up is a very long story.
I bet it is.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 2:53 AM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 2:12 PM John has replied

LRP
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 159 (29270)
01-16-2003 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
01-16-2003 9:53 AM


Genesis is not the only book in the Bible which deals with creation matters. As a biblical creationist I put as much importance on the other scriptures as I put on Genesis.
No I am not a day age person. Nor am I a traditioinal YEC or OEC but I do believe the earth was fairly recently put together using some extremely old material.
The story I tell about the Earth's creation in my book is indeed a long one-I managed to keep it to 288 pages but it could have been twice as long. It is long because I start at the very beginning of the Universe itself and then trace out the development of the Solar Nebula from which our Solar System eventually formed. An intermediate stage in the formation of the Solar System was the formation of hundreds if not thousands of planetisssimals which eventually reduced in number as they aggregated into planets. There are on other planets examples of 'crashed planetissimals' which I mention in my book.
The effects of a collision between a planetissimal and the Earth is very much a factor of the approach direction and velocity. Obviously a head on collision would completely destroy the offending planettisimal but if the approach direction is almost tangential the planetissimal will inflict a galancing blow at first and then skim on the earths surface breaking up as it did so to form a near circular deposit of its contents. The precise nature of the contents we can now determine but it is also predictable from the theory I have used to explain how the Solar System was formed and why the planets have the structure and composition that they do.
I know mainstream science tells us that the plates move and carry with it the continental crust. My theory proposes that the plates are in very slow movement now because of residual frictional and gravitational effects of the crashed planetissimal. Hence I can easily see why the Bible tells us that the pre Flood supercontinent did break up some years after the flood by parts simply sliding off rather than being carried as if by conveyor belt. The mid Atlantic ocean ridge is in my opinion a tearing of the basaltic shell caused by land masses moving east and west by gravitational forces.
I would love to quote the relevant scriptures here but then our arguement may centre on my interpretation of scripture against yours or somebody elses. When it comes to interpretation scripture it is my belief that it very much depends on what guiding spirit we have within us. So I have stated my interpretation but do not expect others to come up with the same interpretation (although many have written to me to say they have)
I hope this answers your queries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 01-16-2003 9:53 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by shilohproject, posted 01-16-2003 2:46 PM LRP has replied
 Message 19 by John, posted 01-17-2003 12:04 PM LRP has replied
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2003 11:30 PM LRP has not replied

shilohproject
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 159 (29280)
01-16-2003 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by LRP
01-16-2003 2:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LRP:
Genesis is not the only book in the Bible which deals with creation matters. As a biblical creationist I put as much importance on the other scriptures as I put on Genesis.
[break]
I would love to quote the relevant scriptures here but then our arguement may centre on my interpretation of scripture against yours or somebody elses. When it comes to interpretation scripture it is my belief that it very much depends on what guiding spirit we have within us. So I have stated my interpretation but do not expect others to come up with the same interpretation (although many have written to me to say they have)

In the absence of scripture quotes we have nothing to base an assessment of your arguement on other than a traditional understanding of either scripture or science. And in both cases it seems iffy, to say the least, especially the notion of a subtle collision between bodies of the mass which must be assumed in this case.
Also interesting: would a guiding spirit (Holy Spirit?) lead differant people to differant conclusions on a matter of historical fact? It would seem that if A=X for one, then it would be the same for another, or at least X=A. The cosmological topics of these boards are not spiritual possibilities, rather they are historical ones.
Help us understand your reasoning. Provide the scriptural cites for your position. Thanks.
-Shiloh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 2:12 PM LRP has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 4:20 PM shilohproject has not replied

John Solum
Inactive Junior Member


Message 7 of 159 (29282)
01-16-2003 3:17 PM


Tranquility base:
You're quite right that this puts a severe constrint on when the flood peak occurred. I simply haven't done the research, and am unaware of whether any creationists have done it yet. This work should be done, agreed, but I'm not preprared to accept a blanket statement that there was never a period when the Earth wasn't sufficently flat to be covered by the exisiting water. As usual in this debate there is no simple resource to find the answer because the issue is simply not one of specific interest to mainstream researchers.
There's certainly interest in determining the height of mountain ranges in the past. The height of the Himalayas in the past, for example, is an area of active research, as is the uplift of the Colorado plateau. I can think of a couple of ways you could determine paleoelevation. In the case of the Colorado plateau, some researchers looked at variations in the size of vesicles in basalt and inferred the elevation at which the basalt was erupted since the size of the vesicles will be influenced by atmospheric pressure. The reference for the paper is:
Sahagian, Dork; Proussevitch, Alex; Carlson, William. Timing of Colorado Plateau uplift; initial constraints from vesicular basalt-derived paleoelevations, Geology, vol.30, no.9, pp.807-810, Sep 2002.
It’s also possible to use stable isotopes, for example oxygen, to determine paleoelevation. Isotopic composition is a function largely of latitude and altitude. If the latitude that a rock formed at is known, then it should be possible to correct for the effects of latitude on the isotopic composition, and figure out the elevation of the rock when it formed. A paper that deals with this is: Chamberlain and Poage. Reconstructing the paleotopography of mountain belts from the isotopic composition of authigenic minerals. Geology, vol. 28, no.2, pp. 115-118.
It would be more difficult to determine the paleoelevation of older mountain ranges using isotopes (for example, the Appalachians), because so much of the mountains have been eroded away, but it should be possible to get some information. It would be possible to constrain the latitude using paleomagnetism, and even though the mountains may be eroded, there are still plenty of sediments that were eroded from the mountains preserved. You could determine the elevation of those sediments, and then the mountains would have to be higher than that. I don’t know if this has been done or not, I’m not a specialist in this area, but it should be possible.
Even if you can’t precisely determine the paleoelevation, you can get some idea of the size of the mountain belt by determining the amount of displacement along the faults that the uplift of the mountain belt occurred on. In the case of the Appalachian mountains the major faults there accommodated at least 10s of kilometers of displacement, and when you add up the individual displacement of all the faults it’s not hard to get 100s of kilometers of total displacement. Clearly, these were major mountain ranges.
Tranquility base:
The ocean basins would also have been shallower than mainstream science predicts. During catastrophic spreading and drift the hot newly created sea-floor would have risen.
The present bathymetry of the ocean floor isn’t compatible with a catastrophic event a few thousand years ago. The present bathymetry matches remarkably well the bathymetry expected as a result of conductive cooling of basalt erupted at ridges and the conventional age of the ocean floor.
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANS
Tranquility base:
All possibly true but its certinaty becomes less and less eliable the further we go back. We need to study what the actual heights and timing of all of the montain ranges were.
The configuration of Precambrian continents certainly becomes less clear as you go back earlier in Earth’s history, but the fact that there were mountain building events is clear. The point I was trying to make here is that mountain building doesn’t represent anything unusual in Earth’s history.
Tranquility base:
We also put down the creation day-3 event (where the land came up out of the sea) to a catastrophic tectonic event, probably also triggered by accelerated radiodecay.
An earlier catastrophic event won’t help your position because, as I stated before, tectonic motion isn’t unusual in Earth’s history since plates have been moving throughout that history.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-16-2003 5:40 PM John Solum has not replied
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 01-17-2003 11:09 PM John Solum has not replied

John Solum
Inactive Junior Member


Message 8 of 159 (29284)
01-16-2003 3:26 PM


Hello LRP,
One of the problems with your idea is that the history of the continents does not begin with Pangea; Pangea formed in the latter part of the Paleozoic Era. I'd be interested to see how you account for the pre-Pangea history of the earth, such as I discussed in the first message in this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 4:10 PM John Solum has not replied

LRP
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 159 (29286)
01-16-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Solum
01-16-2003 3:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Solum:
Hello LRP,
One of the problems with your idea is that the history of the continents does not begin with Pangea; Pangea formed in the latter part of the Paleozoic Era. I'd be interested to see how you account for the pre-Pangea history of the earth, such as I discussed in the first message in this thread.

It seems a little odd to me that if you join up all the present continents it forms a good circular land mass with Jerusalem almost at the centre. Now if mainstream science decrees that there were continents before Pangaea where have they gone to now? Subducted perhaps under a plate? If so whence came the continents that made up Pangaea? I still have not been able to find a convincing theory for the origin of the continents-hence I will hold on to what the Bible says on this problem. So no I cannot account for the pre Pangaea history of the Earth. The idea of a crashed planetissimal as the origin of the first and only supercontinent is simple and logical.
The actual structure of this planetissimal before the crash may account for some of the features that have led Geologists to believe in pre Pangaea continents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Solum, posted 01-16-2003 3:26 PM John Solum has not replied

LRP
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 159 (29288)
01-16-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by shilohproject
01-16-2003 2:46 PM


In the absence of scripture quotes we have nothing to base an assessment of your arguement on other than a traditional understanding of either scripture or science.
Also interesting: would a guiding spirit (Holy Spirit?) lead differant people to differant conclusions on a matter of historical fact?
Help us understand your reasoning. Provide the scriptural cites for your position. Thanks.
-Shiloh
You ask too much of me to answer all these points in this forum.
Please send me a fowarding address so that I can send you a free copy of my book which hopefully will answer these questions. You can then read it at leisure and bin it afterwards if you dont approve of whatI say! Send it to LRP@newnet.co.uk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by shilohproject, posted 01-16-2003 2:46 PM shilohproject has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 01-16-2003 4:22 PM LRP has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 159 (29289)
01-16-2003 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LRP
01-16-2003 4:20 PM


I would have bought Derrida's book called "SPIRIT" but alas I got the GOULD book (weight) instead today~~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LRP, posted 01-16-2003 4:20 PM LRP has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 159 (29294)
01-16-2003 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Solum
01-16-2003 3:17 PM


John S
There's certainly interest in determining the height of mountain ranges in the past.
I'm well aware that mainstream researchers are interested in past mountain building but not particularaly if there was a time when the Earth was flat enough to be covered 100%!
There is no table of data showing estimates fo all past mountain ranges with estimated age of uplift in some review article. It is the same issue throughout science. ANytime I want an answer I have to collate it myself because it is not of particular interest to mainstream science.
Creationists, for example, are interested to see the paelocurrent measurements (let me know if I need to explain that) correlated in global maps for each period. This is of little interest to mainstram researchers who think that these things shouldn't generally be gloablly correlated.
For that reason the best colleciton of mainstream paelocurrent data has been organized by the creationist Chadwick on a web site. This is analgous to mainstream genomics reseachers having to go to a creaitionst site, rahter than NCBI, to access the human genome!
The best catalogue of global fossil distribution per period geographically illustrated (to a resolution of around 50 miles I think) is also a creationist work (Woodmorappe on this occasion).
I can think of a couple of ways you could determine paleoelevation. In the case of the Colorado plateau, some researchers looked at variations in the size of vesicles in basalt and inferred the elevation at which the basalt was erupted since the size of the vesicles will be influenced by atmospheric pressure.
Interesting but are you sure you aren't missing the more obvious methods such as looking at the deformation of strata etc and determining when it occurred by relative deformaiton vertically? But your method sounds interesting - has it been applied?
It’s also possible to use stable isotopes, for example oxygen, to determine paleoelevation. Isotopic composition is a function largely of latitude and altitude.
I think isotope ratios are primarily dependent on temperature aren't they? In our scenario we have all sorts of things going on on that front of course.
If the latitude that a rock formed at is known, then it should be possible to correct for the effects of latitude on the isotopic composition, and figure out the elevation of the rock when it formed.
This all presumes unifromitarianism John (in this case of ocean or perhaps atmospheric temperature). At this point we need to know what has already been reliably done. Then we can prpose schemes for pushing the data.
because so much of the mountains have been eroded away, but it should be possible to get some information.
Agreed but the precision will be low. This should all be done but from my general reading I suspect it will be consistent with our scenario. I have actaully searched abstracts and the web for heights of ancient chains in the past and I find very little. This is what made me suspect that it was a hard ask.
It would be possible to constrain the latitude using paleomagnetism, and even though the mountains may be eroded, there are still plenty of sediments that were eroded from the mountains preserved.
All possible but I think I'll leave it to the mainstream geologists and we'll see what they come up with.
In the case of the Appalachian mountains the major faults there accommodated at least 10s of kilometers of displacement, and when you add up the individual displacement of all the faults it’s not hard to get 100s of kilometers of total displacement. Clearly, these were major mountain ranges.
Sure, so when were they uplifted?
The present bathymetry of the ocean floor isn’t compatible with a catastrophic event a few thousand years ago. The present bathymetry matches remarkably well the bathymetry expected as a result of conductive cooling of basalt erupted at ridges and the conventional age of the ocean floor.
We'll see. You all said that the geo-col was consistent with uniformitarianism. When we go and check we find incredible evidence of high energy events. Correlated paleocurrents half way across continents, vast sorted beds, no modern equivalents (in scope) for most Paleozoic marine strata in N. America and Mesozoic marine strata in Africa etc and fossil graveyards.
So we take those claims that 'seafloors look like non-catastrophic flows' with a few grains of salt.
The configuration of Precambrian continents certainly becomes less clear as you go back earlier in Earth’s history, but the fact that there were mountain building events is clear.
Agreed
An earlier catastrophic event won’t help your position because, as I stated before, tectonic motion isn’t unusual in Earth’s history since plates have been moving throughout that history.
What you call continuous we call catastrophic at 4000BC (creation day 3) and catstrophic at and around the 2500BC flood. Continuous for all intents and purposes. From both your POV and mine a 1500 year gap would generate a trivial non-confromity and be easily consistent with the tectonic record.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Solum, posted 01-16-2003 3:17 PM John Solum has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 01-16-2003 9:05 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 13 of 159 (29320)
01-16-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Tranquility Base
01-16-2003 5:40 PM


TB
quote:
For that reason the best colleciton of mainstream paelocurrent data has been organized by the creationist Chadwick on a web site.
I guess you are referring again to your claims about paleocurrents that were thoroughly refuted here
http://EvC Forum: Non-marine sediments -->EvC Forum: Non-marine sediments
and here
http://EvC Forum: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow -->EvC Forum: Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow
quote:
The best catalogue of global fossil distribution per period geographically illustrated (to a resolution of around 50 miles I think) is also a creationist work (Woodmorappe on this occasion).
You mean like those amphibian fossils that got washed out of the mangrove swamps to be deposited seaward?
http://EvC Forum: Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data -->EvC Forum: Try out this exercise, sitting in front of fossil distribution data
quote:
What you call continuous we call catastrophic at 4000BC (creation day 3) and catstrophic at and around the 2500BC flood.
Hmm. By 2500 BC there had been more than 20 kings of Egypt and the great pyramid had been built. Strange that they didn’t notice this worldwide flood. Then again the civilizations in China and the Indus valley didn't notice it either so maybe it's not so strange.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-16-2003 5:40 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 5:50 AM Randy has not replied

iconoclast2440
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 159 (29337)
01-17-2003 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Randy
01-16-2003 9:05 PM


Randy you are debating with some one who believes that dinosaurs and man coexisted. Shall i pull up dictionary and provide you with the definition of the word futile or do you wish to figure it out for yourself?
-btw The Leviathan isn't a dinosaur its a dragon silly!
Job 41:18-22
18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;
his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrils
as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from his mouth.
22 Strength resides in his neck;
dismay goes before him.
The Behemoth must have been a really small brachosaur if lotuses can conceal him and the poplars by the stream can surround him!
The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [3]
or trap him and pierce his nose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 01-16-2003 9:05 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 01-17-2003 9:25 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 159 (29369)
01-17-2003 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by iconoclast2440
01-17-2003 5:50 AM


quote:
Originally posted by iconoclast2440:
-btw The Leviathan isn't a dinosaur its a dragon silly!
Job 41:18-22
18 His snorting throws out flashes of light;
his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrils
as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from his mouth.
22 Strength resides in his neck;
dismay goes before him.
The Behemoth must have been a really small brachosaur if lotuses can conceal him and the poplars by the stream can surround him!
The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [3]
or trap him and pierce his nose?

What is funny to me is that if these same descriptions where found in Mayan myth, for example, they'd be instantly written off as myth and interpretted to mean some mundane indigenous wildlife. But since it appears in the Good Book, we've got to hear about dinosaurs on the ark.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by iconoclast2440, posted 01-17-2003 5:50 AM iconoclast2440 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024