Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II

quote:

---

Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically.

---

Yes solid rock can be destroyed catastrophically by a massive volcanic blast but what you are implying is false. The ground that was "carved" at St. Helens was partially consolidated deposits from countless previous eruptions of the mountain over the last 20,000 years and soft volcanic mud that flowed as a lahar. Much of the "carving" of previous deposits was done by the largest landslide in recorded history combined with a massive lateral blast not a flood. If you walk out on the mountain as I have done twice since the eruption you can dig up the "solid rock" you are talking about with your bare hands as I think I told you before. The so called little grand canyon on the Toutle river was cut through volcanic ash deposits by mud flows. It is the same material that still occasionally flows in lahars down Mt. Pinatubo wiping out villages and was hardly solid rock. I think you will find that a lot of the so called solid rock has now been transported down the river and had to be dredged out of the Cowlitz and Lewis river basins.You might try to learn what really happened at St. Helens and not believe the distortions produced by professional creationists.Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randy:

quote:

---

Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically.

---

​

Yes solid rock can be destroyed catastrophically by a massive volcanic blast but what you are implying is false. The ground that was "carved" at St. Helens was partially consolidated deposits from countless previous eruptions of the mountain over the last 20,000 years and soft volcanic mud that flowed as a lahar. Much of the "carving" of previous deposits was done by the largest landslide in recorded history combined with a massive lateral blast not a flood. If you walk out on the mountain as I have done twice since the eruption you can dig up the "solid rock" you are talking about with your bare hands as I think I told you before. The so called little grand canyon on the Toutle river was cut through volcanic ash deposits by mud flows. It is the same material that still occasionally flows in lahars down Mt. Pinatubo wiping out villages and was hardly solid rock. I think you will find that a lot of the so called solid rock has now been transported down the river and had to be dredged out of the Cowlitz and Lewis river basins.

---

Stratovolcanos are widely known to be easily erodable. I remember MSH before the eruption. Just a bunch of loose ejecta with a few thin and discontinuous flows. And the deposits created by the eruption were little different. There is no comparison between stratovolcanic pyroclastics and lithified shelf sediments.

quote:

---

You might try to learn what really happened at St. Helens and not believe the distortions produced by professional creationists.

​

Randy

---

Good advice.

Your ability to misinterpret what you read as favorable to your views is breathtaking. I strongly disagree with almost all your proposals, and I accept almost none of your evidence, yet you somehow convinced yourself that I thought I had made a definite diatom identification? You have got to take off those rose-colored glasses!When I found another diatom that vaguely resembled your photo I mentioned it to you in order to point out the ambiguity in your own identification. I by no means thought I was making a definite identification, and I said so very clearly. Here are some excerpts from that message ( Message 67): That you made such a gross misinterpretation of my post is really bewildering, but it is at least consistent with your habit of interpreting everything you read in the most wildly optimistic fashion possible. Positive thinking is a good thing, but let us please at least continue to inhabit reality.The point I have been trying to make to you is that you have to figure out how to persuade others. Interpreting opposition as support within your own mind is an interesting and imaginative shortcut, but it has no correspondence to external reality and in the end is just delusional.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-17-2003]

Dear Percy;

quote:

---

I by no means thought I was making a definite identification,

---

No you did not make a "definite" identification, but you did offer Asteromphalus heptactis as better a choice than my identification as Asterolampra marylandica. My point was that your alternative choice to my identification, was another marine diatom, which despite all your hedging, implies that what the pictured idem most looks like is a marine diatom. Now if you had offered as an alternative a picture of some mundane soil organism that more closely matched my picture than Asterolampra marylandica did, that would be another case all together. I of course realize that any support that you may have given was purely unintentional.--WmScott

Dear Tranquility Base;

quote:

---

Have we established that the Yellowstone forests are sitting at 27 levels or is it simply an estimaton that there were approximately 27 gneerations of forest? I severely doubt that there are 27 neat ground levels. I would love to see the data on that.

---

Yes of course there are 27 'neat ground levels'. This type of thing is not that uncommon, you have a forested area with a steep hill above, every so often a flash flood or heavy rain brings down a surge of mud or land slide that buries the old ground surface by a few feet. This kills the old trees which rot away above ground, and new trees grow on the new surface. The mainstream theory on this is so simple it is borning, while the YEC theory is unable to explain this in any detail. For explain, you still haven't explained why the trees don't extend through the layers above or why the trees line up with old surface layers.

quote:

---

The Bible describes a 76 generation geneaogy from Adam to Christ in one chapter of the gospel of Luke.

---

Yes it does, but that doesn't give any support to YEC at all, it is the time before Adam that is in question.

quote:

---

The jet mechanism is a heat transfer mechanism. The hottest water will be the water near the thousands of kilometres of rift valleys that gets transported into space.

---

That doesn't explain anything, it is still a cute but not a very bright idea on the heat expelling jets, for how do you expel the heat up out through the atmosphere without heating up the atmosphere itself? And if you expel all the heat out into space, you would have to expel all the hot water as well. You could have the now frozen water reenter the atmosphere, but the heat of reentry will still heat the atmosphere. So far this still sounds like magic.

quote:

---

The Ort cloud is just a construction of theorists trying to save the long-age model.
And you know of the top of your head the volume of water in the observed comets? Remember we don't need to have the Ort storehouse of comets, we only need the onserved ones.

---

The Ort cloud was largely theoretical, but now with the larger telescopes and the mapping of some of the larger members of the comet cloud, it is no longer merely theoretical. Perhaps you remember the Shoemaker-Levy comet impacts on Jupiter in 92? The comets are out there and many of them are quite large judging from size of the impacts on Jupiter from mere fragments of one comet. Mapping of the comets in the outer solar system has revealed comets the size of moons, in fact they would be moons if they were in the appropriate orbit. The total amount of water these comets would contain if they were pure water ice, would be several times the amount of water on the earth. That brings up another point, the comets are not pure water ice, they contain many other types of ice such as ammonia. These other gases are common on the gas giants and moons of the outer solar system, but they do not exist in any appreciable amounts on earth. In fact, the comets have pretty much the same composition as the outer planets and their moons which would indicate a common origin. The lack of many of these compounds on earth would clearly preclude a earthly origin.Rift valleys would be totally unable to supply the energy necessary to launch comets into deep space. Heat and kinetic energy are two different forms of energy. All the heat in the world will not lift an object into the sky unless you can explain a way of converting the heat energy into kinetic energy. For example a exploding volcano such as Krakatoa goes off like a bomb and fragments of the cone can be thrown high into the air, some have even theorized that a huge volcanic blast could perhaps put a few volcanic rocks in low earth orbit. But I fail to see any such mechanism for a spreading rift valley.

quote:

---

Orbits are automatic once you escape Earth with insufficent energy to escape the solar system. Circularity per se? I don't know of the top of my head. Someone would have to study this propoerly.

---

The Russia space program has repeatedly demonstrated over the years just how difficult it is to achieve circular orbits around the sun and other bodies in the solar system. Ever hear of a elliptical orbit? Achieving a circular orbit takes the right amount of momentum in the right direction. The direction is very very narrow, just a little bit off and the orbit is non circular or elliptical with a high and a low point. Launching something straight up from the earth's surface with no course changes will stand very little chance of achieving a circular orbit in the outer solar system. As rockets that carry earth satellites are launched, they generally turn towards the east to build enough eastward or rotational motion to achieve orbit, if they were just shot straight up, a geosynchronous orbit is about the only orbit they could try to reach. This will hopefully show you that the direction of launch or trajectory is just as important as velocity. My point here is that to put objects in nice distance circular orbits takes enormous precision as well as enormous power. Wildly spraying jets of water stand no chance of doing this, it is mathematically impossible.

quote:

---

there should be no comets in the mainstream scenario!

---

You keep saying this, but you don't say why. There are no problems in the "mainstream scenario" that I know of. So what is your problem here?

quote:

---

Agreed. If this is how God did it then he would have arranged it to enable survivability.

---

So you agree that without divine intervention the YEC flood would have steamed cooked the entire planet? Since I accept the possibility of intervention, I will allow you to use miracles in explaining YEC flood theories, but I do ask that we keep track of where and how many you invoke. Should I put you down for one miracle for the heat problems and one for the formation of the Bushveld complex?

quote:

---

Catastrophic sea-foor spreading at rift valleys would undoubtedly generate huge jets of steam and rain. You guys can't have it both ways: 'You have too much energy output!' + 'How can you boil water for rain?'

---

How? How will 'Catastrophic sea-foor spreading at rift valleys' 'generate huge jets of steam and rain.'? At a rift valley you have a crack in the continental crust where it is being pulled apart and magma from below is coming up to the surface, under YEC this would be the instant high speed creation of the Atlantic ocean. Now as the landmasses were supposedly pulled apart and a whole ocean of hot magma was exposed to the surface, where did the water come from? The magma does contain trapped gases including some steam under enormous pressure from the weight of the earth crust above, removal of the crust from above the magma causes the gases to violently expand and explode. This would result under YEC in the whole present Atlantic ocean being one vast sea of violently erupting magma with great ocean wide jets of super heated hot jets of gas blasting up from the newly exposed magma surface. An unbelievable amount of hot ash and lava bombs would be shot up into the air. The earth would be turned into hell on earth as the astrosphere would be heated to extremely high temperatures (>200 F) earth wide in just a few days and the ash would fall earth wide blackening out the sun and the air would be filled with poisonous gases. Contained in the released super heated volcanic gases would be steam, which would be dispersed in the atmosphere and if the planet ever cooled down again, it would fall as rain. But this rain would be a light rain, for there is very little water in magma (>1%), so to flood the earth from this source, you would first need to flood it a hundred times over in lava. The 'jets' of hot gases would be like what is seen in some volcanic eruptions, they can shoot high into the atmosphere, but they carry mostly ash and very little water. Due to their very nature, being expanding gas, they can not extend out into space. So there is no way volcanic activity can put water into space.

quote:

---

Mt St Helens demonstrated on an intermediate scale how solid rock can be carved out catastrophically.

---

I see that some other posters here have already show the errors in this, and even if it had happened, what would it have to do with the YEC flood? Mt St Helens was not a spreading rift valley, what would it have to do with a flood of water carving rock?

quote:

---

We see the geo-col as a snapshot of life. It is simply a mainstream assumption that it is a time series.

---

A mainstream assumption? They have all the evidence, you have nothing and I mean nothing, no backing of evidence at all.

quote:

---

There is another rest day. It is not the same one. You failed to quote the most commonly used translation. In the NIV it appears as:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-

​

In the other translations it is clear that the meaning is not what you imply. In consecutive verses the Bible tells us it was 7 days and then 1. But the one is for 'the heavens and the Earth', not necessarily the filling out of it which took the rest of the creiton week. You come close to mocking Scripture. It is utterly clear what is meant in Gen 2:4.

---

In the next quote below you will go on to argue that each creative day was a 1000 years long, so it would seem that you do agree that the biblical term 'day' can stand for longer periods of time. This does weaken your argument above, for if a 'day' could have been a 1000 years, why could it not have been longer? And why couldn't the time span of six days be referred to as one day in Genesis 2:4? The wording used in this verse "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" is all inclusive, the entire process is what is being referred to, not just a part there of. Let's talk about the seventh day after your next quote.

quote:

---

Agreed. I actually believe the creation week was 7000 years and that we are in the 2nd 'redemptive' week which is just about into it's 7th day which I believe will be the millenium of Revelations. This is not a standard view of course although it has been discussed from time to time in Christendom. I could give you a dozen reasons for this understadning of Heb 4, Rev and 2 Pet some other time.

---

Now this is a considerable change from six literal days of creation to 6000 years which would double the YEC estimate for the age of the earth. Now we both believe that man has been on the earth for about 6000 years, now if you are right, God created man and then took a 1000 year rest day and then went back to work for 6000 years. That would mean we have about a thousand years to go before God has his second rest day. (1000 + 6000 = 7000) If this was true we would not be currently living in God's rest day, yet the Bible states that we are. (Hebrews 4:1-11) Also in the Bible we are told that each creation day began and ended, so where in the Bible does it say that the seventh day ended? And where is any mention made of these other days that you are talking about. Yes you definitely have a non standard view point, in fact it appears to be completely non Biblical without any scriptural support at all. Which supports what I have been saying all along, YEC has no scriptural support, it is a theory without any supporting evidence at all.--WmScott

I already told you I only looked at diatom pictures. As I've already said (why do I have to keep typing "As I've already said"?), I'm sure that if I examined other types of micro-organisms that I'd find vague resemblances there, too.You are trying to argue that I in some way supported your viewpoint when I am in essence standing right here in front of you shouting my disagreements at you. I don't think your ID is correct, I don't think my ID is correct, and I don't have any idea whether your picture is even of a diatom or not.By the way, they don't happen to use fertilizer out your way, do they?--Percy

Just for the heck of it I tried to find some pictures of other types of algae. These aren't as common on the net as pictures of diatoms, but they're also circular with splines, so here's another vague resemblance, this time to something that isn't even a diatom:And, of course, algae is just one form of the many types of microscopic life. Like I keep saying, the object in your photo is in such poor condition it could be anything. I'm not saying it isn't a diatom. I'm saying, as I've been saying all along, that I'm a non-expert when it comes to diatom identification, so all I can do is note the vague resemblance between your photo and various reference photos.I'm beginning to sense a reluctance on your part to seriously explore whether or not you are right, so I again encourage you to put your evidence before people who are properly qualified to evaluate it.--Percy

Percy, are you sure those algae are not also diatoms. Diatoms are a variety of algae (but I guess that's why you said "other algae").Mooth

Wm That sounds like very uncritical acceptance to me. Where have we established that that is clear in the Yellowstone data? You are to accepting of mainstream science! The mainstream explanation is simply the best one they could come up with. To see if it is a shoehorn explanation you have to go back to the data. OK, so I know where you stand on that. Of course it heats up the atmosphere. A simulaiton would be required to be qunatitative on this. It is simply a proposed heat transport mechanism! Stop trying to read more into it please. What?! The Ort cloud is simply a proposed store house of comets because mainstream scince needs it. The data does not otherwise particularly require it. Do yo know why the Oort cloud was proposed? It was to explain why we still have comets in an old solar system. You may have a good point. Wm, that is incorrect. Highly concentrated heat source could lead to a guyser effect due to steam pressure build up. There is a perfect mechanism of KE generaiton. Exactly what velocity it reached is, at this stage, open to speculation. You may have a point here, I don't know enough about orbital mechanis or comet observations. I believe God ordained the physical events in such a way that they worked! Whether he simply triggered accerlated decay and sat back I simply don't know. If the heat was transported by escape velocity steam then I wont put that in the class of the miraculous. You;'ll have to remind me about the Busheld complex. From the ocean of water surrounding Pangea, the sem place in the mainstream scenario. Why do you look for porblems that don't exist? That is not what we are talking about. You seem to forget that we put the formation and break uyp of Pangea into the flood period so there was plenty of time that the rift valleys were under oceans. That's just what we expect (Edit: OK, perhaps not your extreme temperatures). How can you claim to have examined the YEC scenario if you continually misinterperet it? It is far more reasonable to assume that 7 days is 7 thousands years (in the context of 2 Pet 3) than tha t7 days is one day. Becasue that's nto what 2 Pet 3 says. Te most reasonable assuption is 24 hour days. An acceptable one, which actually makes incredible sense, is the 1000 year 2 Pet 3 interpreation. Your interpreation of ages per day is not supportable scriptually. Almost, but you're 1000 years out. IN this scenario we would expect the millenium to start about now (if one had to make a prediciton it would be 2030AD):Dispensation of the Father: Adam (~4000 BC) - Abraham (~2000BC)
Dispensation of the Son: Isaac (~2000 BC) - Jesus (29AD)
Dispensation of the HS: 1st outpouring(29 AD) - last outpouring (now?) You completely ignore that Heb 4 talks of 'another' rest day. That 'day' is described in detail in Rev 20-22. It is the millenium. The endtimes 'day of the Lord' as descibed throughout the NT encompasses events which occur at both the beginning and end of the millenium of Rev. The 'great and terrible' day of the Lord is a 1000 year day.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]

I can't be any more certain than the website they came from, which called them algae and not diatoms, so maybe they're diatoms. They *do* look like diatoms, don't they. Hey, I keep saying I'm not an expert. If Wmscott takes his pictures to a qualified geologist or biologist practiced at identifying diatoms, and that person concurs that they're marine diatoms, then that would increase my confidence in Wmscott's IDs, which is at around zero right now. And if the pictures made it into a journal paper, meaning it had gone through peer review, then that would give me even greater confidence.But even if Wmscott's IDs are right on the mark I don't think it would provide any support for his ideas. I've recently received some information that indicates marine diatoms are ubiquitous in the environments of industrialized countries because of the use of diatomacious deposits in a variety of applications from fertilizer to cattle feed to air filters. I'll post it when I get a chance, but I've been hoping the person who sent me the info would post it himself. Last chance, guy!--Percy

quote:

---

That sounds like very uncritical acceptance to me.

---

LOL! And yet you can cling to a fantastic interpretation with untenable sub-theories and wishful thinking without any critical reasoning whatsoever!

quote:

---

You are to(sic) accepting of mainstream science!

---

Tell me it ain't so! Wmscott, too accepting of mainstream science! You can't be serious!

quote:

---

The mainstream explanation is simply the best one they could come up with.

---

Yep that's all it is. Ummmm, of course, that's all that it can
be. Yes, scientists who have worked on these ideas for hundreds of years couldn't come up with anything better than a bunch of fantasy. It is becoming clearer to me now that we should abandon all of the preexisting work and accept a mythical story pushed by a couple of laymen who have no background in this area.

quote:

---

To see if it is a shoehorn explanation you have to go back to the data.

---

Right! TB hasn't done any shoehorning at all. I think the fast-slow, hot-cold, deep-shallow, violent-gentle wet-dry flood is a much better explanation.

quote:

---

Wm, that is incorrect. Highly concentrated heat source could lead to a guyser(sic) effect due to steam pressure build up. There is a perfect mechanism of KE generation(sic). Exactly what velocity it reached is, at this stage, open to speculation.

---

Nope, it isn't. I'm sure that this can be calculated based on the strength of the rocks, the total weight of overburden and some reasonable idea of dissolved gases. But even barring that, please show us evidence that this has ever happened.

quote:

---

I believe God ordained the physical events in such a way that they worked! Whether he simply triggered accerlated(sic) decay and sat back I simply don't know.

---

Gosh, TB, thanks for this scientific explanation! I understand now where I was wrong all this time. Now, could you explain once again about that comment regarding 'uncritical acceptance?'TB, is this really your best argument?

[I wrote the following earlier in the week, it is already 'out dated' by board posts, but I liked the way it came out so I will post it as it was written.]Dear Percy;Reading your posts is like watching a cat trying to back itself out of a bag over its head. Eventually the cat learns that backing doesn't work and that the way to get the bag off is to bat it off. The moral of the story is that to keep denying or backing up, will not extricate you from the logical conundrum you have managed to work yourself into. There are two simple ways to 'bat the bag off your head," one is to simply admit that yes it does look like a marine diatom, the second is to find a picture of some micro organism that looks more like the picture than the marine diatom that I say it is. In fairness I will say that the second choice is really a dead end, since to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. Your pride will of course prevent you from taking the first choice, hence the humorous cat backing up reenactment will probably continue.--WmScottYou certainly are no dummy Percy, you found your way out on your own, very good. However, the algae pictures you posted does not look more like the picture I posted than ether of the two marine diatom pictures we had each posted earlier. But how about a link to the page where you found the pictures? And how about some species names? Even though I disagree with your new identification, I would like to check it out in more detail.Know any "qualified geologist or biologist practiced at identifying diatoms," that would be willing to at a look at my findings? I would love to get in touch with one willing to look.I will wait till the material on use of diatoms is posted before I comment on it.--WmScott

Dear Tranquilty Base;On the Yellowstone fossil forests, there are definite ground layers and the trees have not been moved as the following link and post shows.

quote:

---

Yellowstone National Park (U.S.) Fossil Forests
Some literature and other presentations claim the stacked "fossil forests" in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, United States, do not represent separate, successional forest development. For example, Steve Austin makes this claim in a video tape available from the ICR. Rather than being buried in place, it is claimed that these stumps are transported, and therefore they could be deposited in a short time, rather than the long time it would take for growth of a forest, burial, and growth and burial of each of the succeeding forests.
This claim is not supported by the evidence. Several characteristics can distinguish between stumps that are transported and those that were buried in place (see Fritz, 1980 and the citations in Fritz, 1984, quoted below). The trees at Yellowstone have been examined, and only some tree specimens at some localities are transported. The Specimen Ridge examples, which are most commonly cited, consist of in-place stumps.
Like the modern environments around Mt. St. Helens, there is potential to bury stumps in-place *and* to transport them upright in a variety of sedimentary environments (although burial in-place is far more common). Distinguishing the two (or even recognizing the presence of both) is not difficult. To simply say, "tree stumps can be transported, so all occurrences can be dismissed", is incorrect. The vast majority of occurrences can not be explained by transport.
References and quotes
Fritz, W.J., 1980. Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone "fossil forests". Geology, v.8, p.309-313.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place. Geology, v.12, p.159-162.
Fritz, W.J., 1984. Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place." Geology, v.12, p.638-639.
Yuretich, R.F., 1984. Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place." Geology, v.12, p.639.
[Both authors agree there is plenty of sedimentological evidence Specimen Ridge examples are in place, and that *some* of the trees at *other* sections in the area might be transported.]
Fritz, 1984:
"In many places not cited by Yuretich, I have also interpreted the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge to be in place and have stated that the forests [besides Specimen Ridge] are best explained by _both_ in situ and transported wood (Fritz, 1980a, 1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984). Furthermore, I have proposed ways to differentiate in situ from transported stumps (Fritz, 1981a, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984); by all these criteria, the tall stumps on Specimen Ridge are in place."
[Some other locations may have transported stumps]
Yuretich, 1984:
"Fritz's Comment clears up any lingering misunderstandings that may have arisen as a result of the original publication about the Yellowstone fossil forests that triggered this series of exchanges (Fritz, 1980c). He has clearly stated elsewhere (Fritz, 1980a, 1982) that the Specimen Ridge trees are preserved in place, and I am glad this statement now appears in _Geology_."
"Many details of the facies relationships in the Lamar River Formation [the unit the Yellowstone fossil forests occur in] still must be studied, but I think we have at last gotten to the root of the forest problem, and no longer need to be stumped by the origin of these fossil trees."

---

Found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.htmlThat should clear it up for you, if you need further evidence, check and read the cited references. On checking this issue on the web, I found it has become a bit of a hot topic with YEC due to the obvious implications. If the Yellowstone site was an isolated event, it would help the YEC point of view, the fact that a number of stacked fossil forests are known around the world, indicates that the YEC explanation is stretched beyond the breaking point in trying to account for them all. For example.

quote:

---

Repeated flood events and fossil forests at Curio Bay (Middle Jurassic), New Zealand
Mike Pole

​

Department of Botany, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia

​

Received 24 January 2000; accepted 6 December 2000 Available online 11 October 2001.

​

Abstract
During the Middle Jurassic, the regional environment of Curio Bay, southeast South Island, New Zealand, was a fluvial plain marginal to volcanic uplands. Intermittent flashy, poorly-confined flood events buried successive conifer forests. With the termination of each flood, soils developed and vegetation was reestablished. In most cases, this developed into coniferous forest. In approximately 40 m of vertical section, 10 fossil forest horizons can be distinguished, highlighting a type of fluvial architecture which is poorly documented. Flood-basin material is minimal, but a short-lived floodbasin lake is inferred to have developed within the interval of study. Paleocurrent indicators suggest enclosure of the basin on more than one side. Sedimentation style suggests a relatively dry (less than humid but not arid) climate with seasonal rainfall.

---

www.sciencedirect.com...#1 {Fixed and/or shorted link - Adminnemooseus}From the description it sounds like you would need ten of your flood surges with time for a forest to grow in-between each surge just to account for this one example.

quote:

---

Three buried forests of the Last Glacial Stage and middle Holocene at Ooyazawa on northern Honshu Island of Japan
Shuichi Noshiro , Mitsuo Suzuki and Sei-ichiro Tsuji

​

Abstract
Three extensive buried forests of the Late Quaternary were unearthed at Ooyazawa, Aomori, in the northern part of Honshu Island of Japan during construction of a flood water reservoir. The lower and middle buried forests were formed by activities of the Towada Volcano and dated from the early period of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Late Glacial Period, respectively. The upper buried forest was formed as a result of sea level changes and dated from the Early Jomon Period of middle Holocene. Picea and Larix dominated in the lower and middle buried forests of the Last Glacial Maximum and the Late Glacial Period, accompanied by occasional Abies. In the middle buried forest Picea and Larix grew evenly intermixed, and Larix trees were larger (up to 84 cm in stem diameter) than Picea trees (up to 33 cm in stem diameter). The taxonomic composition of the lower and middle forests was similar to that of the buried forests on the eastern slope of the Towada Volcano of the Late Glacial Period. The buried forests of northern Honshu Island, as well as those of south to central Honshu Island, indicate that Picea—Larix forests were the dominant vegetation through the Last Glacial Maximum to the Late Glacial Period on central to northern Honshu Island. In the upper buried forest of the middle Holocene, Fraxinus and Alnus dominated, accompanied by Juglans, Castanea, Quercus, Fagus, Magnolia, Hydrangea, and Acer. This upper buried forest contemporaneously formed woody peat below the forest floor. According to a pollen analytical study at Ooyazawa, similar buried forests continually established themselves after frequent destructions by flooding for at least 1000 years of middle Holocene. Lowland forests of Fraxinus and Alnus that simultaneously formed woody peat grew extensively in the Kanto Plain of central Honshu Island during the middle Holocene. The upper buried forest at Ooyazawa was the first record of this type of lowland forest outside the Kanto Plain and showed that the establishment of marsh forests with contemporaneous woody peat was a general phenomenon in a large area of Honshu Island during the middle Holocene.

---

www.sciencedirect.com...#2 {Fixed and/or shortened link - Adminnemooseus}Sounds like only three forest layers, but it does show that layered fossil forests is a fairly common finding, in northern Wisconsin we have at least one that I can think of. When you look at detail at these former forests, including their numbers and locations, it is a problem for which YEC has no real answers.On the comets, I find I will have to make a retraction on part of my argument, the composition of comet gases is simular to volcanic gases.

quote:

---

"This is not identical to--though definitely reminiscent of--the composition of the volcanic gases on the Earth, "

---

Britannica on comet gases.Now in your arguments on comets you have stated that there are no comet clouds or belts in the solar system, that these are purely theoretical inventions by mainstream science to save their failing theories and that the comets actually are made up of water (and other gases) ejected from the earth at the time of the flood. I gather if this is your position, confirmation of the existence of Oort cloud or Kuiper Belt comets would be fatal to YEC. Well here is another stake in the heart of YEC, the following is part of a news story on the discovery of a very large and distance comet.

quote:

---

"The new object is much bigger, about half the size of Pluto, and is very distant from the Earth.
The asteroid was first spotted in May by astronomers at the Cerro Tololo Observatory, Chile."
"Follow-up studies put its size at 1,200 kilometres or more across. "
"As a Kuiper Belt Object, it must be given a mythological name associated with creation."

---

I would like to point out that with a diameter of 1,200 kilometers this one comet would contain about 65% of the earth's present ocean volume. Another problem is this is not the only distance comet found.

quote:

---

Objects of this type are icy planetary bodies that orbit beyond planet Neptune in the distant region of the Solar System known as the Kuiper Belt. More than 400 such objects are currently known

---

http://www.eso.org/...each/press-rel/pr-2001/phot-27-01.html
If we were to add up the volumes of all these known comets, we would have a figure larger than the current amount of water on the earth. And with 400 identified comets, the existence of distant comet belts is a matter of fact, YECs will have to go back to the drawing board, again. It should be also remembered that Pluto is the largest member of the Kuiper Belt and there is quite a bit of scientific controversy whether it should be counted as a planet or as a comet. Pluto has the same composition as the other Kuiper Belt comets and obviously would have the same origin. Pluto has a volume equal to four and half times the current volume of water on the earth. Even for YEC it must seem impossible for such a large volume of water to have come from the earth.On the rifts valleys blasting water into space, I see you want to use a "guyser effect due to steam pressure build up" I guess you have never been to Yellowstone which has something like 90% of the world's geysers. Geysers can shoot water hundreds of feet into the air, but that is pretty much about it. Under extreme conditions a theoretical super geyser could maybe reach thousands of feet into the air, still well short of even the upper atmosphere. Also geysers only occur in heated rock, not lava, so they would not occur with the sudden creation of the YEC Atlantic ocean. As I said earlier on volcanic activity venting water into space. "The 'jets' of hot gases would be like what is seen in some volcanic eruptions, they can shoot high into the atmosphere, but they carry mostly ash and very little water. Due to their very nature, being expanding gas, they can not extend out into space. So there is no way volcanic activity can put water into space." TB, it just doesn't work, it is completely impossible for comets to have formed from water somehow ejected from the earth, there are so many impossibilities with this theory it is so bad that it manages to even make YEC look worse than it already does. My advice is to dump this turkey of a theory before it pulls the rest of YEC down with it.The Busheld complex was the igneous intrusion complex in South Africa that I talked about in an earlier post.

quote:

---

How can you claim to have examined the YEC scenario if you continually misinterperet it?

---

There are so many YEC scenarios with mutually conflicting ideas, it is a sea of chaos. Perhaps you could provide a link or links to web sites that have the particular scenarios that you support, that way we can save some time and I will not be shooting so many holes in the sky.

quote:

---

It is far more reasonable to assume that 7 days is 7 thousands years (in the context of 2 Pet 3) than tha t7 days is one day.

---

You are too literal in your interpretation as shown by the use of the word 'day' in this chapter to refer to different time periods, such as the day of our forefathers and the day of judgment, both references to time periods the length of which is not stated.

quote:

---

Almost, but you're 1000 years out. IN this scenario we would expect the millenium to start about now (if one had to make a prediciton it would be 2030AD):

---

Now in Genesis 2:2 seventh day starts after the creation of man, so how can you have a 1000 year rest day and six more 1000 year days, and yet you say man is only 6,000 years old? this isn't adding up. Also the start of Christ millennial reign is not connected with the length or timing of the creative days, for the simple reason that Matthew 24:36-42 states that only God knows the set time, not even Jesus knew. Now if the set time was related to the timing of the creative days, wouldn't all the spirit creatures know the set time? Therefor your line of reasoning is clearly in error.

quote:

---

You completely ignore that Heb 4 talks of 'another' rest day. That 'day' is described in detail in Rev 20-22. It is the millenium. The endtimes 'day of the Lord' as descibed throughout the NT encompasses events which occur at both the beginning and end of the millenium of Rev. The 'great and terrible' day of the Lord is a 1000 year day.

---

You are misunderstanding the meaning and wording of Hebrews 4:8 which reads "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;" I happen to have the NIV study Bible, if you look at the foot note it even states "Israel's going into Canaan under Joshua was a partial and temporary entering of God's rest. That, however was not the end of entering, as shown in the continuing invitation of Ps 95:7-8." Paul's point was that the promised land was not the paradise the meek are to inherit, it only fore shadowed the future entry of Christ's followers into the New World. So there are not two divine rest days being referred to in Hebrews 4:8, there is only one divine rest day mentioned in the Bible. Rev 20-22 refers to Christ's reign and does not refer to the seventh creative day.So to sum up. you have no answers for the following.1. heat problems with YEC accelerated flood geology theories.2. how large igneous intrusions such as the Busheld complex had time to cool slowly.3. how the water that under YEC formed the comets was ejected from the earth.4. how the ejected comets achieved distant circular orbits.5. unable to account for the large size and number of comets discovered.6. unable to explain layered fossil forests7. unable to explain why there has not been found a cold subducted pacific plate reaching as deep into the earth as the mid Atlantic ridge is from the Americas east coast.8. unable to explain how YEC supposed sudden burst of heat from a surge in the earth's internal radiation didn't leave the earth too radioactive to live on and why large quantifies of secondary short lived radioactive daughter products such an event would have produced are not found.9. unable to explain the Mid Atlantic ridge record of magnetic reversals recorded on the ocean floor and how the vast changes that would have to occur in the magnetic flows inside the earth could have occurred so quickly.10. unable to explain the pattern seen in the depth of sediments in connection with the Mid Atlantic ridge, none on the active parts of the ridge and gradually increases the farther you get away from the ridge across the ocean floor and the rate of increase agrees with a slow spreading of the ridge with a slow sediment rate.11. unable to explain ice age animals, where they came from, when they lived and why they died.12. unable to explain many, many other points too numerous to list all at once.This is why I don't accept YEC, the more you look into it, the more problems there are, if it was the right answer, it would solve problems rather than create them. It is extremely obvious that YEC is in complete error. From the above you can see that there are many things that YEC can not answer, and there is nothing that clearly supports YEC. All of the evidence YECs have used to try to support YEC is found after a brief examination to be based on some very wishful thinking.--WmScott[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-24-2003][Fixed links broken by code bug. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 01-24-2003]

Mr. Scott, I attempted to repaired what appeared to be one or two bad links, and also used UBB code to shorted the text of the link such that the page wouldn't be overwide.Unfortunately, the links don't work. I don't know if they worked or not before I diddled with them. In general, there seems to be problems with links with very long URL's. Also, there are some pages that can't be directly linked to from the outside - I think those two might be examples.Sorry about that.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

There is indeed a bug in the code for generating URLs. I know what the bug is, and I know how to fix the links in wmscott's message, and I will fix both the bug and the links later this weekend if possible.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator