The Flood

1. Here are two cites which convey in laymen terms some of what I am trying to convey regarding Genesis flood relative to plate tectonics:Global Flood Geology - 24k - Cached - Similar pageshttp://www.projectcreation.org/...ticles/kid_zone_detail.php2. I am not denying some aspects of miracle in the global flood. I'm debating, after all, from a Biblicalist's perspective to show that what is observed may be interpreted from that perspective to support the preflood canopy hypothesis to explain the volumn of water. Totally natural processes set in motion via ID may have caused some natural phenomenon to happen to the planet to effect condensation of the canopy. This may include such senarios as earth orbit adjustment et al. I'm not saying that that's what happened. It's just an example of one possibility.The bottom line to my position is that science cannot be so positive that the Biblical account is impossible and that science has empirically falsified that account.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

quote:

---

The bottom line to my position is that science cannot be so positive that the Biblical account is impossible and that science has empirically falsified that account.

---

The problem with your approach is that you wish to take each issue in isolation, so you can suggest discrete solutions for each of the problem areas. however when you look at the flood in totality, then the problems are just too large to overcome. From the flood to be true or even possible, virtually every single scientific discipline plus the study of history would have to be fundamentally flawed, and virtually all of our empirical knowledge would be suspect. If our knowledge was flawed in such a manner, it would be unlikely that we would have seen the technological innovation that we have over the last 2000 years, it would be impossible with such major misunderstandings being present in our scientific foundations.In addition it would require all scientific disciplines and scientists to be getting it wrong all the time everytime.there are literally thousands of problems with the biblical account, covering chemistry, physics, biology,biophysics,our understanding of ecologies,geology, geophysics,hydrology,meteorology, physical geography,oceanography, soil science - the list just goes on and on all of these would have to be wrong in fundamental ways for the biblical account to be true.Every single thread we have about the flood ends in the same way special pleading, handwaving, some vague musing about science getting it wrong, some vague musing about science not knowing everything.it's entirely up to you if you want to believe in the flood, based disingenuous of you to say any more than " I believe in the flood but I have absolutely no idea how it would work in accordance with scientific principles".that really is the start middle and end of your position.

quote:

---

It's just an example of one possibility.

---

This is just a shotgun technique, every time your possibilities get shot down all you do is suggest another "well maybe..."Edited by CK, : clarificationEdited by CK, : typos introduced because of using voice recognition.Edited by CK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1. Here are two cites which convey in laymen terms some of what I am trying to convey regarding Genesis flood relative to plate tectonics:
Global Flood Geology - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

​

http://www.projectcreation.org/...ticles/kid_zone_detail.php

---

The first is some guys who don't klnow what they are talkign about and just assume that continental drift can be compressed into the post-flood timeframe. There is no attemt to deal with the evidence or answer the problems I raised.The other link refers to Baumgardner's ideas, which IIRC rely on putting parameters which are at least questionable (maybe outright false in one case) into a model and showing that if the parameters are correct - and if the model works under those conditions - rapid tectonic movlemet is a theoretical possibility. Again there is no attempt to deal with the empirical evidence - the question of whether it HAS happened. These links, therefore support my point. There is no "flood tectonics". The evidence is clear that it did not happen. End of story.

Buz just who is a fella to believe....Your referenced source Versus the US Geological Survey...http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html When I have time I will research the papers behind this issue and find out who is right.{ABE} Sorry Paulk I inadvertently responded to your post, however BuzSaw was the intended recipient. Edited by iceage, : Replied to wrong post.

One more point. Is this true?

Probably for the same reason they are found in the Himalyas, the Rockies, the San Fransisco mountain range, the Kaibab, Ararat range, and in the hills of Delhi, India where the fossil beds are abounding with a variety of organisms. Do these fossils conform to any kind of geological pattern? Why are they so randomly dispersed all over the world? Could every mountain formed been near water to account for fossilized aquatic lifeforms? These are the kinds of questions that make me think that a flood seems more plausible than uplift near water. That's because there is no reason to assume that every mountain range was ever in the proximity of a large body of water. An to produce such a vast array of organisms preserved in sandstone, or what have you, wouldn't a sudden burial would have to have been required? What happened to this Ichthyosaur found fossilized while giving birth? How was it covered so suddenly that it was this well preserved while it was giving birth? You might say that's anomaly but its certainly worth investigating, wouldn't you agree?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

It was magic water so why not?Mental Gymnastics my friend. Mental Gymnastics.

The simple answers are "yes" and "yes". Every mountain is part of the very fabric of the planet. They are made of of material that his been distorted, heated, uplifted, eroded, deposited and re-uplifted in a cycle that has lasted billions of years. One has to get a handle on the sheer magnitude of the time involved.The rock cycle. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

You mostest hugest mistake is the "while giving birth". It didn't have to be "preserved" while giving birth and I'm sure wasn't. It only had to die while giving birth which we know happens; sometimes because of the birth itself other times just because of increased vulnerbility and others just bad luck.Once dead there are lots of preserving process (especiailly in water). If it sinks into a low oxygen area or into a place where sediments are being laid down reasonably quickly (off a river mouth, bottom of an undersea cliff etc.) then the preservation can take place over days, weeks or even months.It is just our good luck that this one was preserved and found out of all that probably died while giving birth.

Go to Banff, Alberta when it's not under snow if you ever get the chance. Look at the mountains around the town. They are made of pancake-flat layers of sediment which a close look will tell were laid under water. They were laid down horizontal. They are tilted now.Conventional geology explains this. A one-year or hundred-year flood can't. The rocks cannot have solidified enough in a century or two to hold their shape with a 500-foot sheer break sitting up in the sky at one end. And the mountain never had to be "near water." The rocks formed under water. Later - MUCH later - they were uplifted to make a plain. Much later still, the plain was uplifted and squeezed from the edges to make mountains.

Baumgarder is a good geodynamical modeler when he uses reasonable values in his models. The problem is that when he uses real values, he gets answers that don't fit his young earth perspective (but publishes old ages anyway). When he uses unrealistic values, he gets a flood, but runs into other problems. Here are a couple of links you might want to consider when dealing with creationists who talk on both sides of their mouthScience, AntiScience and Geology: A conversation with creationist John Baumgardner
THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEANSCheersJoe MeertPS: Here's some problems with magnetic field arguments (though not specifically the issue you brought up).Is the Earth

Given this statement: this statement: necessarily follows, no matter the evidence.In addition, you are yet again displaying a remarkably infantile understanding of what science does.Science is never, ever "positive" about anything. What science can conclude, and has concluded, is that assuming that natural processes have functioned pretty much in the past as they have now, and given the evidence that we have to date, the Noahic flood could not have happened.To paraphrase your statement so that it more accurately reflects reality:"I am so wedded to the literal truth of the bible that it's impossible for science to convince me otherwise, no matter the evidence, because I will always fall back on a miracle to justify my belief."I honestly don't know why you bother even discussing things in this vein.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Joe thanks for info and links, I will spend some time studying it.

While the book of revelations says that the earth will shake such as it has not shaken since its beginning that genesis suggests in the beginning was the earth and heaven created(explains the earlier rapid magnetic reversals).The fossil evidences suggests from this point forward the earth is no older than 11,000 years. However does not the scripture imply that the earth shook before man was on the earth when it was created and it will again (book of revelations). Thus those rapid magnetic reversals expressed before the creationists biblical flood should be expected.There is no reason to believe the earths fossils are not young however would not all these creatures need be created after this initial great shaking event before that great shaking event that scripture says happened before man was on the earth. kjv revelation 16:18.Was the earth shaken before the sun became a star 12,000 years ago or was it on the first creation day when the Lord caused the earth to rise up out of the seas. kjv genesis 1:6.It appears these rapid magnetic reversals are actually evidence of the biblical flood senerio and rapid magnetic reversal previous to the biblical flood to when and how the earth was formed.And God called the dry land EARTH! kjv genesis 1:6.----------------------------------According to the dynamic-decay theory, the true age would be less than that because of extra losses during the reversals and fluctuations. The solid line (labeled "dynamic decay") shows that with a significant loss of energy during the Genesis flood, the age of the field would be about 6000 years.The Institute for Creation Research

I hope you'll excuse me for explaining just how shaking predicts magentic reversals. sorry, but this makes no sense. grammatically, even. we live through earthquakes all the time. hell, it was an earthquake that caused the indian ocean tsunami in 2004. I survived (being far inland in the US). unless you mean like a really, really powerful earthquake, more powerful than has ever been recorded or can even be possible w/o destroying the earth.