Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 212 of 460 (6918)
03-15-2002 5:20 PM


edge
"Where did all of the evidence of an impact on the ice sheets go?" "How can I prove my point that a cometary impact initiated melting of the continental ice sheets?"
The ice sheets melted taking much of the evidence with them. This leaves us with secondary evidence caused by the impacts, the sudden very large release of water from the ice sheet for unexplained reasons. Impact dust layers in ice core records, such should be found at the time the Carolina bays were created. There may even be found impact craters on the edges of the former ice sheet from impacts that occurred just clear of the ice or ones where the ice was thin. ( some of the Carolina Bays occur in the NE with a round shape that is hard to match with the alignment of the other bays and may be from a second impact pattern over the ice sheet to the north.) In the glacial out wash till traces of cometary trace elements may turn up.
"Exactly what part of the data does the mainstream theory not explain? And how is your theory better?" better at explaining Michigan whale bones, glacial erratics in places the glaciers didn't reach, super floods erosion, traces of marine diatoms found underneath drop stones, raised shorelines, the pluvial period, Pleistocene extinction and animal distribution, pattern of human migration and genetic distribution patterns, relic lakes at high elevations, evidence in the Carolina bays of being submerged after being formed, and may other little odds and ends.
On the drop stones in the Driftless area ( an area that was not glaciated) and geology, they are an anomaly, some geologists attempt to explain the lower elevation ones as drop stones from huge floods on the Mississippi from temporary ice dams with no real explanation for the ones at high elevations. Other geologists write them off as all being the results of pranksters out to embarrass them. In general they are ignored as an unexplained anomaly. In fact, they are easy to explain if a global flood occurred, they are indeed drop stones from a flood on the Mississippi, just that the flooding was caused by a rising sea level that rose high enough to cover the elevations where the higher drop stones are located. My flood theory provides an explanation for what is otherwise in conventional geology is an anomaly or written off as the work of pranksters.
doctrbill
Lots of fancy foot work, but you still haven't answered the question. At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by edge, posted 03-15-2002 5:31 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 215 by doctrbill, posted 03-15-2002 9:34 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 216 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 11:22 AM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 213 of 460 (6919)
03-15-2002 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by wmscott
03-15-2002 5:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge:"Where did all of the evidence of an impact on the ice sheets go?" "How can I prove my point that a cometary impact initiated melting of the continental ice sheets?"
The ice sheets melted taking much of the evidence with them.

Oh. That's convenient!
quote:
This leaves us with secondary evidence caused by the impacts, the sudden very large release of water from the ice sheet for unexplained reasons. Impact dust layers in ice core records, such should be found at the time the Carolina bays were created.
Should be. So where is the evidence?
quote:
There may even be found impact craters on the edges of the former ice sheet from impacts that occurred just clear of the ice or ones where the ice was thin. ( some of the Carolina Bays occur in the NE with a round shape that is hard to match with the alignment of the other bays and may be from a second impact pattern over the ice sheet to the north.) In the glacial out wash till traces of cometary trace elements may turn up.
We are adding up a lot of "maybes" here. I'm looking for evidence to support your theory.
quote:
edge: "Exactly what part of the data does the mainstream theory not explain? And how is your theory better?"
wmscott: better at explaining Michigan whale bones, glacial erratics in places the glaciers didn't reach, super floods erosion, traces of marine diatoms found underneath drop stones, raised shorelines, the pluvial period, Pleistocene extinction and animal distribution, pattern of human migration and genetic distribution patterns, relic lakes at high elevations, evidence in the Carolina bays of being submerged after being formed, and may other little odds and ends.

Excuse me, but we have given you standard mainstream explanations for all of these items that fit with the rest of the surrounding data, such as plate tectonics as well. You have simply dismissed them.
More later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by wmscott, posted 03-15-2002 5:20 PM wmscott has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 214 of 460 (6936)
03-15-2002 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by wmscott
03-14-2002 4:17 PM



Percy wrote:
I haven't seen any anomalous evidence that needs explaining.

Wmscott replied:
I have. If you don't want to see it, that is your choice.
This isn't a case of denying evidence before my very eyes but rather one of you citing evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis. Your evidence fits into these categories:
  1. Evidence for which there is no confirmation. This consists of evidence only you yourself have seen and verified, in other words, it hasn't been confirmed by anyone else. Example: marine diatoms under dropstones.
  2. Evidence for something, but not for global flooding. Example: evidence of catastrophic glacial flows.
  3. Invented evidence. Example: Claiming a 1000% dating error for whale bones in Michigan.

The flood is not a 'creation myth', it occurred long after creation and hence could not be such since it is not even part of the creation events.
Sorry, sloppy terminology. Flood mythology, then.

I guess that you have never heard of the pluvial period when rain regularly fell in areas where the rain shadows are today.
I was referring to your lack of evidence that the Andes, Rockies, Alps and Himalayas suddenly caused rain shadows when they popped up a couple miles 10,000 years ago. This is the kind of confirming evidence you should be searching for, particularly since you believe there's no direct evidence.

Percy wrote:
There's no genetic "eye of the needle" that all species would have passed through 10,000 years ago.

Wmscott writes:
Who says there was? Sounds like you are slipping back into some old YEC debate.
You believe all land animals of the world were saved on Noah's ark 10,000 years ago. This would have reduced the total genetic variation to only 2 or 14 individuals depending upon the kind. This filter to genetic variation would be readily apparent to genetic analysis, but it isn't there.
You also haven't addressed how, scientifically and non-miraculously, pairs of all the kinds of animals of the world were able to migrate to the Middle East before the flood, and then to migrate back after.

Really? Since I have been theorizing that the impacts occurred in connection with the Carolina bay impacts, then the lack of such evidence would mean that the bays have a non-impact origin. What is that origin?
As you already know, there are about 30 different theories for the origin of the Carolina Bays, and at this time there is no consensus. The lack of an isotopic signature in ice cores of 10,000 years ago is unfavorable to the impact theory. The lack of any non-ordinary atmospheric particulate matter in the ice cores such as would be thrown up by impacts so large as to cause shock waves that crumpled entire ice sheets is additionally unfavorable.

Percy wrote:
What leads you to believe that what professional geologists think are glacial boulders are actually dropstones?"

Wmscott replies:
Because the geologists are unable to provide a glacial method of deposition. After all, we are talking about glacial boulders in an area that was not glaciated, that should be a clue.
Geologists provide no explanation for glacial erratics in the driftless area of Wisconsin because they have found none. Check out this abstract from a paper by David M Mickelson of the Department of Geology and Geophysics of the University of Wisconsin which concludes, "there appears to be no evidence that the Driftless Area was glaciated at any time."
So your claim of yet another geological mystery is false. Geologists are not trying to "explain away" glacial dropstones as erratics because they haven't found any erratics that have to be explained.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by wmscott, posted 03-14-2002 4:17 PM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 215 of 460 (6944)
03-15-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by wmscott
03-15-2002 5:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
Lots of fancy foot work, but you still haven't answered the question. At Genesis 1:2 what 'earth' is being referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10?

Have you been paying attention? This is the third time I have addressed this question.
It is the same land in both instances. The fact that your favorite "translation" words it "earth" at verse two and "land" at verse ten doesn't change the meaning of erets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by wmscott, posted 03-15-2002 5:20 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 216 of 460 (7006)
03-16-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by wmscott
03-15-2002 5:20 PM


quote:
wmscott: On the drop stones in the Driftless area ( an area that was not glaciated) and geology, they are an anomaly, some geologists attempt to explain the lower elevation ones as drop stones from huge floods on the Mississippi from temporary ice dams with no real explanation for the ones at high elevations.
Not at all. In fact drop stones could conceivably occur anywhere that water could take them. The point is that the water only took them to elevatons as high as 700 feet above present sea level. Don't you think this is a better explanation than a global flood? It explains why I don't have drop stones in my back yard.
quote:
Other geologists write them off as all being the results of pranksters out to embarrass them.
First of all (and you knew I was going to say this) do you have a reference to this? Second of all, do you think that people do not try to prank geologists?
quote:
In general they are ignored as an unexplained anomaly. In fact, they are easy to explain if a global flood occurred, they are indeed drop stones from a flood on the Mississippi, just that the flooding was caused by a rising sea level that rose high enough to cover the elevations where the higher drop stones are located.
Yes, about 700 feet above sea level in a local flood in the proglacial area! No global flood necessary!
quote:
My flood theory provides an explanation for what is otherwise in conventional geology is an anomaly or written off as the work of pranksters.
Nonsense. I just explained it to you. It took me 15 seconds to think it up. Perhaps most geologists don't believe that it is such a big deal that they need to explain it. Usually these things are covered in Geology 101.
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by wmscott, posted 03-15-2002 5:20 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 03-16-2002 1:51 PM edge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 217 of 460 (7019)
03-16-2002 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by edge
03-16-2002 11:22 AM


Hi Edge,
We've both been addressing the Driftless Area dropstone issue. As I understand Wmscott's position, it is that there are glacial erratics (boulders carried within glaciers that are left behind when the glacier melts or recedes) in the Driftless area that geologists can't explain since it is not believed the area was ever glaciated.
But I've been unable to uncover any evidence for glacial erratics in the Driftless area. In fact, the reason the area is believed to have been unglaciated is due to the absence of glacial erratics and glacial till such as is found is many other parts of Wisconsin and neighboring states.
I've therefore come to believe that Wmscott is making up this story of a geological conundrum. Any boulders he's found in the Driftless Area are neither dropstones nor erratics. Geologists are not resorting to claims of pranksters to explain glacial erratics in the Driftless Area because there are no glacial erratics to be found there. I cited this link to an abstract of a paper by David Mickelson in my previous message that is unequivocal about the lack of evidence for glaciation in the Driftless Area.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 11:22 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by edge, posted 03-16-2002 3:38 PM Percy has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 460 (7028)
03-16-2002 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by wmscott
03-14-2002 4:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
1)...the abstract seemed to imply that the paper was on ice impact events in a vacuum designed to investigate impacts between material in the solar system such as comets. Which is why a number of the experiments have been done with a mixture of water ice and dry ice CO2..
2)In an impact event in space, yes there would be no melted ice, at least not for very long. In an atmosphere, heating of the air and surface, results in temperatures very possibly above the freezing point.
3)In the case of an over lapping pattern of Carolina bay type impacts, wide spread heating of the atmosphere and ice surface is to be expected.
4)If nothing else the ejected ice fragments would gain enough heat to melt at least partly from the kinetic energy imparted to them. The impacts would have delivered a lot of kinetic energy to the ice sheet surface, some of the energy would have ended up in the form of heat.
5)Think of it this way, where did all of the comet impact energy go? The only other place is in the kinetic energy given to the ejected ice, but since the impactors had to pass through the atmosphere we know some of the energy was turned into heat.
6)The ejected fragments had air friction and a secondary impact if they didn't vaporize in the air. With all this energy being tossed around, there probably would have been secondary melting.
7)Plus with much of the ejected ice vaporizing or melting, there was plenty of water to run off into the sea.
8)Then there was also the water the impact shocks released from sub glacial lakes, and ice dammed lakes, and the possible shock induced surging.

First you seem to misunderstand the mechanism of impact crater formation...
If a body hits another body travelling faster that the maximum speed of propogation of a shock wave through the impacted medium (Hypervelocity) the kinetic energy arrives faster than it can dissipate. This leads to a sharp rise in temperature at the impact site. This increase in temperature vaporizes the impacting body and material from the impacted body forming a crater...
Note the word vaporizes NOT makes liquid...
So now onto your post...
1)Well yes it was in a vacuum, have you ever tried firing a .5mm diameter streel ball bearing at 6Kms-1 through NEA? How far do you think it would get? How accurate would it be?
Also the experiments were conducted at room temperature so if the ice was going to reach a liquid state due to the impact it would do so in the experiment...
2)yes there wouldn`t be any melted ice (I assume you mean liquid water) in an impact in space it would be solid remainder and vaporized ejected material... NO water...
Pretty similar to an impact into ice on earth...
3)Atmosphere yes (though negligable), ice surface no...
The heat is dissipated by vaporizing the impacted material i.e it all goes into the (rather large and cold) atmosphere...
4)"ejected ICE fragments"????
There is no such animal bud the ejected material is vaporized, ergo is vapor i.e is not an "ice fragment"...
Practically all the kinetic energy is released as heat and practically all of it goes straight up into the atmosphere along with the water vapour.....
Not a lot remains in the ice sheet...
5)I know where it goes its you that seems to be having problems, it goes into the (rather large and cold) atmosphere with the water vapour, its dissipated through the atmosphere and it doesnt raise the atmospheric temperature by very much (by virtue of the atmosphere being very big and cold)....
6)Once again no such animal as "ejected fragments" and they certainly didn`t "vaporize in the air" because they vaporized before they left the surface....
As for secondary melting why the atmospheric temperature would barely change around the glacier...
7)a)Ejected = thrown up into the atmosphere, not going to run off over the ice sheets as you put it...
b)Ejected material is vapour not liquid water....
8)Which isn`t what you said with impact melted water running off over the ice sheets is it?
Also the shock waves only carry a tiny portion of the energy of the impact...
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by wmscott, posted 03-14-2002 4:17 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 219 of 460 (7032)
03-16-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Percy
03-16-2002 1:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi Edge,
We've both been addressing the Driftless Area dropstone issue. As I understand Wmscott's position, it is that there are glacial erratics (boulders carried within glaciers that are left behind when the glacier melts or recedes) in the Driftless area that geologists can't explain since it is not believed the area was ever glaciated.
But I've been unable to uncover any evidence for glacial erratics in the Driftless area. In fact, the reason the area is believed to have been unglaciated is due to the absence of glacial erratics and glacial till such as is found is many other parts of Wisconsin and neighboring states.
I've therefore come to believe that Wmscott is making up this story of a geological conundrum. Any boulders he's found in the Driftless Area are neither dropstones nor erratics. Geologists are not resorting to claims of pranksters to explain glacial erratics in the Driftless Area because there are no glacial erratics to be found there. I cited this link to an abstract of a paper by David Mickelson in my previous message that is unequivocal about the lack of evidence for glaciation in the Driftless Area.
--Percy

Perhaps he is confusing the erratics with former stream bed deposits as the article suggests. However, unless wmscott can provide some evidence to support his position, I think you are absolutely correct. This is a wishful story on his part. The odd part is that I don't think he even realizes that this is a just-so story and not evidence. The story has become embedded as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 03-16-2002 1:51 PM Percy has not replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 220 of 460 (7238)
03-18-2002 4:30 PM


edge & Percipient
Here are two references to the drop stones found in the Wisconsin Driftless area.
"The presence of rare erratic bowlders on the Mississippi bluffs in the Driftless Area may be explained by the possibility the glacial Mississippi was temporarily dammed at the south. Such a damming would form a long, narrow, valleylake. Erratics might be rafted out by floating ice to positions high above the present flood plain, and into the mouths of tributary, non-glacial valleys, as in Grant River where such erratics of granite, diorite, porphyry, and quartzite have been found.
On the other hand, the small pebbles of granite, trap, porphyry, jasper, quartzite, found near the Mississippi at several localities east of Trempealeau, La Crosse, and De Soto, at elevations of 380 to 480 feet above the river, may very well be older drift," (The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, Third Edition by Lawrence Martin 1965, pages 130-131)
There is of course no evidence for the giant damming of the Mississippi, and raising the level of the river 380 to 480 feet above it's present level is of course impossible, which is why the drop stones at those elevations are assumed to be from older glacial activity. While nearly impossible to explain under conventional geology, the drop stones are easy to explain using the flood. What happened is simple, the super flood of water and ice flowing down the Mississippi was backed upped by the rising sea level and icebergs drifted over the Driftless Area dropping stones as the ice melted.
The occurrence of rare glacial boulders in the Driftless Area has long been noted and has lead to some rather unorthodox scientific explanations to try to account for their presence. "Geology and geography professors have long been taking their classes to the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin and parts of neighboring states, that "island" that escaped being run over by the ice sheets. Students know that on a field trip to that area the professor would be stressing the absence of glacial deposition. So before these trips it would often happen that practical jokers would haul boulders and smaller rocks from surrounding glaciated territory and place them conspicuously were they would be encountered during the field trip, to the embarrassment of the professor. No one knows how many of these glacial erratics have been scattered through the Driftless Area by pranksters." (Ice Age Lost by Gewn Schultz 1974, p.270)
If you carefully read the article you guys posted the link to on the Driftless area, you will notice that the writer refers to glacial erratics in the area that he explains as being carried into the area by water. The erratics he refers to are some of the drop stones long noted to be found in the Driftless area. His explanation however fails to account for the all drop stones such at the ones that are found along the Mississippi bluffs described in the first reference above.
Now Guys, the reason we are having this debate, is you are trying to convince me that my views are in error and to provide better explanations for what I have found, and I have repeatedly asked to hear any better answers. But then instead of showing what these better answers are, you go and ignore the evidence or claim that I made it up. How does this possibly convince me when I have references like the above and my own findings that I can see with my own eyes? By your assertions, you prove my point that these findings are anomalies that geology can not explain without a flood. You also demonstrate that so far, I seem to be the only one with a theory that solves the mystery of these anomalies, if in attacking my theory you need to resort to claims of fabrication. For if you had better answers, wouldn't that be a far more convincing line of attack then claiming that things I can see for myself are not really there? Percipient wrote "This isn't a case of denying evidence before my very eyes but rather one of you citing evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis." Well, maybe you should open your eyes.
Percipient wrote "You believe all land animals of the world were saved on Noah's ark 10,000 years ago." Incorrect assertion. It is obvious that many land animals survived in their locations without a migration to and back from a point in the middle east. Many animals managed to survive the flood on their own by rafting or other means. As I have been posting many times.
Percipient wrote "there are about 30 different theories for the origin of the Carolina Bays, and at this time there is no consensus." The reason there are so many is because none of them is any good, only the impact theory makes sense. I noticed that you didn't post descriptions of any of the other theories, do you favor the creation by spawning fish theory perhaps? or maybe the Indian religious mound theory? The rest are not much better, like I said, only the impact theory is a plausible theory for the formation of the Carolina Bays.
Percipient wrote "impacts so large as to cause shock waves that crumpled entire ice sheets" Not part of my theory, the ice sheets were too large to have been 'crumpled' by a single impact that the biosphere of the earth could have survived. The Carolina bays point towards multiple impacts spread out over a large area which would have resulted in large scale surface abrasion, but 'crumpling entire ice sheets' is a bit of over statement.
doctrbill
Then at Genesis 1:2 how can your interpretation of 'earth' be referred to before the creation of the land in verse 10? It is impossible for the 'earth' in verse two to be land since at that point there was none. The only 'earth' that this verse could possibly be referring to is the planet earth. This simple little fact disproves your entire argument. The Bible does have references to the entire earth or planet, and your objection to a global flood based on a restricted interpretation of the word earth in the Bible, is shown to be in conflict with scripture.
joz
On the impacts you stated "As for secondary melting why the atmospheric temperature would barely change around the glacier..."
Some references on the Tunguska impact event and its effects.
"Recent computer simulations account for the Tunguska event in terms of a 15-megaton blast created when a small comet or stray asteroid slammed into the atmosphere. A searing fireball ignited everything within miles and then the fire was almost immediately extinguished by the blast wave created by the explosion. . . . Seismographs sensed slight tremors, and barometric data recorded the passage of a pressure wave from the blast that rounded the planet several times." Impact! the threat of comets and Asteroids by Gerrit L. Verschuur, pages 109-110.
"After impact, a column of flame and clouds of thick black smoke billowed up from the site. Hurricane force blasts of hot air knocked people and animals off their feet and broke windows. . . . More than 1,000 square kilometers of forests were flattened." Cosmic Collisions by Dana Desonie, page 88.
A comet impact on earth is accompanied by a large release of heat hot enough to start forest fires at considerable distances from the impact area. Notice also that the Tunguska impact was detected by Seismographs in other parts of the world, and this was back in 1908. Please remember that we are talking about a Carolina bay type impact pattern, one author estimates there are 500,000 bays with 2,500,000 having once existed, before being erased by erosion. Considering the effects of the Tunguska event and the possibility of multiplying it by thousands or even millions, the amount of heat dumped into the earth's atmosphere and surface would be staggering. The termors from so many impacts would be like a rain of giant hammer blows. It would also be impossible for the atmosphere to hold the water vapor from so many impacts, even if could have, it would have rained out in a period of heavy rain storms (40 days?) which are a part of an impact winter predictions. So even if all the water went into the air as vapor, much of it still would have ended up in the sea. But, as I stated, it is not possible for the atmosphere to hold so much water, so much of it had to fall out at once, which due to the abundance of heat released, much of it would have been in the form of rain. The explosive blasts of each impact would have blown surface materials out from each crater and the heat blasts would have melted or vaporized much of such as well.
Another author even speculated. " what actually happened eight thousand to ten thousand years ago to end the hunter-gatherer chapter in human history? Quite suddenly, agriculture appeared. Writing was invented, giving rise to record-keeping and literacy. And the earliest human records all record stories of floods that devastated civilization. The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Greek Flood of Deucalion, and the Noahic flood are merely the most familiar examples. The study of the literature of catastrophes even has a name: it is called eschatology. Modern biblical scholars seem generally intent upon tracing which eschatological writings may have been imported from other cultures, completely ignoring the important question: What actually happened? central Asian land and Amerind traditions describe the emergence of dry land from beneath a global ocean (a peculiar concept to arise among Plains Indians if they "invented" the story!). What did happen then? Was the clock of human history reset to zero by an event ( or more than one ) that devastated civilization?" Rain of Iron and Ice; the Very Real Threat of Comet and Asteroid Bombardment by John S. Lewis, page 185. A number of authors writing on the subject of comet impacts have speculated along similar lines.

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by doctrbill, posted 03-18-2002 11:17 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 222 by joz, posted 03-19-2002 10:41 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 223 by edge, posted 03-19-2002 11:19 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 03-20-2002 9:54 AM wmscott has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 221 of 460 (7279)
03-18-2002 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by wmscott
03-18-2002 4:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott
doctrbill: It is impossible for the 'earth' in verse two to be land since at that point there was none.

OK.
quote:
wmscott
The only 'earth' that this verse could possibly be referring to is the planet earth.

There is no land, but there is a planet?
quote:
This simple little fact disproves your entire argument.
The first paragraph of this chapter (verses 1 and 2) also mentions creation of the heavens, which are said to have been created (again?) on the fourth day.
"When God began creating ...", earth was "without form" (unformed). Creation begins with the introduction of light. If the heavens and the earth already existed, then how is what follows an account of their creation?
Every story needs an introduction. The first paragraph of chapter one is that introduction. If you have been studying more than one commentary, then you know that this point of view is not mine alone.
quote:
The Bible does have references to the entire earth or planet, and your objection to a global flood based on a restricted interpretation of the word earth in the Bible, is shown to be in conflict with scripture.
I do not restrict interpretation except where it departs from good scholarship. It is plentufully evident that earth was not believed to be a planet, by anyone, until relatively recent times. Bronze Age Hebrews did not have unique knowledge of cosmology. Your theory is a modern one, and cannot be supported from the scripture without inventing new definitions for old words. What you call my theory is simply the classical understanding of this scripture.
I have dealt with the scriptures which you offered in evidence and showed that your interpretation represents a theological bias. The God of the Jews lays claim to all the land not all the planet. Elsewhere in scripture this real estate is specified as that which is bordered by the northern Euphrates, the western Mediterranean, and the Nile of Egypt. Aside from those parameters, this deity lays no claim, other than to refer to that parcel as, "all the earth." Then again, the gods of Babylon, Syria, and Egypt also claimed that land, and the prophet notes that the king of Babylon has conquered "all the earth." So it's a contest for control of the middle east.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2002 4:30 PM wmscott has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 460 (7296)
03-19-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by wmscott
03-18-2002 4:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
1)On the impacts you stated "As for secondary melting why the atmospheric temperature would barely change around the glacier..."
....A searing fireball ignited everything within miles and then the fire was almost immediately extinguished by the blast wave created by the explosion....
....A comet impact on earth is accompanied by a large release of heat hot enough to start forest fires at considerable distances from the impact area.....
2)...Seismographs sensed slight tremors, and barometric data recorded the passage of a pressure wave from the blast that rounded the planet several times."...
3)...Another author even speculated. " what actually happened eight thousand to ten thousand years ago to end the hunter-gatherer chapter in human history?...
4)...central Asian land and Amerind traditions describe the emergence of dry land from beneath a global ocean (a peculiar concept to arise among Plains Indians if they "invented" the story!). What did happen then?
(added by edit)
5)So even if all the water went into the air as vapor, much of it still would have ended up in the sea. But, as I stated, it is not possible for the atmosphere to hold so much water, so much of it had to fall out at once, which due to the abundance of heat released, much of it would have been in the form of rain. The explosive blasts of each impact would have blown surface materials out from each crater and the heat blasts would have melted or vaporized much of such as well

1)First up by secondary melting I thought you meant due to the increase in temperature of the total atmosphere after the initial impact, shock and blast...
Second think for a moment WMS if its hot enough that trees start to spontaneously combust will ice a)melt and remain as liquid or b)vaporize and disperse into the atmosphere as steam?
Now personally I think its b) what about you?
2)Just thought I`d point out slight tremmors hardly the sort of thing you expect to smash a couple of cubic kilometers of ice apart....
3)Possibly, and this is just a theory mind you, some bright young thing thought hey sod this running after the animals to kill them for a lark, lets put them in a pen so we know where they are....
And while we`re at it we could grow the plants we like to eat...
And thus agriculture was born...
4)It would be kind of freaky if they had always lived in the plains but didn`t their ancestors cross the (apologies for spelling here) baring straights from asia?
5)"...impact melted water flowing off the ice sheet and into the sea..." is the exact phrase that I objected to...
I know that a lot of water is thrown up into the atmosphere but its hardly relevant to the phrase I objected to....
Just for reference I think that you are vastly overestimating the ammount of water released to the atmosphere...
Also once again please note that an impact event is not an explosion as such and material ejected would predominantly (close to 100% there of) be vaporized...
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2002 4:30 PM wmscott has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 223 of 460 (7301)
03-19-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by wmscott
03-18-2002 4:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
edge & Percipient
Here are two references to the drop stones found in the Wisconsin Driftless area.
"The presence of rare erratic bowlders on the Mississippi bluffs in the Driftless Area may be explained by the possibility the glacial Mississippi was temporarily dammed at the south. Such a damming would form a long, narrow, valleylake. Erratics might be rafted out by floating ice to positions high above the present flood plain, and into the mouths of tributary, non-glacial valleys, as in Grant River where such erratics of granite, diorite, porphyry, and quartzite have been found.
On the other hand, the small pebbles of granite, trap, porphyry, jasper, quartzite, found near the Mississippi at several localities east of Trempealeau, La Crosse, and De Soto, at elevations of 380 to 480 feet above the river, may very well be older drift," (The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, Third Edition by Lawrence Martin 1965, pages 130-131)

Fine. Dropstones are found at an elevation of 380 to 480 feet asl. What does this have to do with a global flood? I can see that we are not getting through, wmscott. You need to find evidence that shows not only that there was a global flood, but that your theory is diagnostic in explaining it. You have failed at this.
quote:
There is of course no evidence for the giant damming of the Mississippi, and raising the level of the river 380 to 480 feet above it's present level is of course impossible, which is why the drop stones at those elevations are assumed to be from older glacial activity.
No problem. Glaciers happen.
quote:
While nearly impossible to explain under conventional geology, the drop stones are easy to explain using the flood.
This is exactly where we have shown you to be wrong. You have not shown that a global flood is necessary to deposit dropstones.
quote:
What happened is simple, the super flood of water and ice flowing down the Mississippi was backed upped by the rising sea level and icebergs drifted over the Driftless Area dropping stones as the ice melted.
Nonsense. This could happen in exactly the same way without a global flood. If your reasoning were correct, every dropstone would be related to a global flood. If so, why do we see them floating in lakes and in the ocean today?
quote:
The occurrence of rare glacial boulders in the Driftless Area has long been noted and has lead to some rather unorthodox scientific explanations to try to account for their presence. "Geology and geography professors have long been taking their classes to the Driftless Area of southwestern Wisconsin and parts of neighboring states, that "island" that escaped being run over by the ice sheets.
This at least makes more sense than a global flood for which there is absolutely no evidence.
quote:
Students know that on a field trip to that area the professor would be stressing the absence of glacial deposition. So before these trips it would often happen that practical jokers would haul boulders and smaller rocks from surrounding glaciated territory and place them conspicuously were they would be encountered during the field trip, to the embarrassment of the professor. No one knows how many of these glacial erratics have been scattered through the Driftless Area by pranksters." (Ice Age Lost by Gewn Schultz 1974, p.270)
Are you saying that pranks never happen? Sorry, but having worked in the field for 20 years, I guarantee you that this has more support than a global flood. I have told you this before, but obviously you dismiss it. Why is that?
quote:
If you carefully read the article you guys posted the link to on the Driftless area, you will notice that the writer refers to glacial erratics in the area that he explains as being carried into the area by water. The erratics he refers to are some of the drop stones long noted to be found in the Driftless area. His explanation however fails to account for the all drop stones such at the ones that are found along the Mississippi bluffs described in the first reference above.
You mean the ones at 380 to 480 feet above sea level? Not very convincing for a global flood.
quote:
Now Guys, the reason we are having this debate, is you are trying to convince me that my views are in error and to provide better explanations for what I have found, and I have repeatedly asked to hear any better answers.
Nope. We are trying to help you with the next version of your book. And no, it has not been our objective to provide better explanations, at least I haven't. When you get them it's just a bonus.
quote:
But then instead of showing what these better answers are, you go and ignore the evidence or claim that I made it up.
Nonsense. We do not ignore your claims, we refuted them and you had no response.
quote:
How does this possibly convince me when I have references like the above and my own findings that I can see with my own eyes?
Simple. Because your evidence does not even suggest a global flood, just a proglacial lake or arm of the sea.
quote:
By your assertions, you prove my point that these findings are anomalies that geology can not explain without a flood.
We just did explain them. Simply, without machination, and most importantly, briefly.
quote:
You also demonstrate that so far, I seem to be the only one with a theory that solves the mystery of these anomalies, if in attacking my theory you need to resort to claims of fabrication.
Utter silliness. These anomalies are hardly deep mysteries of geology. They are easily explained, but as with most geology, there is insufficient information to prove anything.
quote:
For if you had better answers, wouldn't that be a far more convincing line of attack then claiming that things I can see for myself are not really there?
You have been given several alternative explanations that you simply dismiss with a handwave. Aren't you projecting a bit here, wmscott?
[This message has been edited by edge, 03-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by wmscott, posted 03-18-2002 4:30 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Percy, posted 03-20-2002 10:14 AM edge has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 224 of 460 (7322)
03-19-2002 4:21 PM


doctrbill
"The first paragraph of this chapter (verses 1 and 2) also mentions creation of the heavens, which are said to have been created (again?) on the fourth day." There is no big mystery here, this is believed by many to refer to a clarification of the atmosphere so that the lights in the heavens could be seen clearly from the ground. (a blow against the canopy theory by the way.) "If the heavens and the earth already existed, then how is what follows an account of their creation?" The Genesis account opens with an existing universe and the planet, having been created earlier before the account starts, in the beginning. It then proceeds with a step by step account of the terra forming of the planet earth. The 'creative days' are time periods or stages in development. Most of the work described was no doubt done using natural means. Since Genesis is an account of the development of the planet, it is by its very nature referring to the entire planet, since it is about creation of all things. The very fact that Jehovah is credited with the creation of the universe or heavens should clue you in to the fact that the account deals with all the earth. In presenting your interpretation you focus on what many people believed about the earth in times past, but you have overlooked the fact the creator of the earth and inspirer of the Bible certainly knows the true form of the earth. So even if you are correct in what the ancient Hebrews believed about the earth, it would make the Bibles references to the whole of the earth that much more miraculous if as you claim, it was written by men who didn't know the extent of the earth.
You also made a reference to 'good scholarship', you can not make that claim since as you have already admitted you don't even understand the dreams of Daniel which are mostly explained right in the book of Daniel. Having such a limited knowledge of basic Bible context clearly disqualifies you from 'good scholarship.' Since the meaning of many words is determined by the context, and as you have already shown an extremely low level of comprehension of Biblical context, you are completely unqualified to determine the meaning inferred by the usage of words in the Bible. Your low level of scholarship is also shown by your refusal and inability to post any references which support your interpretation. Considering the fact that your viewpoint is in conflict with biblical Hebrew dictionaries and biblical reference works, and you have responded to that conflict by labeling such works as biased and wrong, the only support for your interpretation is your own personal opinion based on a very shallow and erroneous view of the Bible. Your erroneous theories on the word circle at Isaiah 40:22 highlight your biased view, not even taking into account Job 26:7 stating the earth is hanging upon nothing. Both scriptures referring to the whole earth. To ignore the obvious meaning of these verses and many others such as Genesis 1:2, referring to the whole earth, requires a level of biased interpretation that renders your opinion valueless. Due to the fact that you support your opinion on a claimed standing as some sort of Bible scholar, it is time to rip that phony sheepskin off your back. I don't know if your body physically sat in the appropriate class rooms, but even if so, is clear that your mind failed to absorb much of anything. If you have a piece of paper, it would seem that is all you have, for you certainly are no Bible scholar in biblical knowledge or understanding.
joz
There would be both steam and water from the effects of the impact heat depending on the distance from the impact. Frankly, it doesn't matter too much whether the water was liquid or vapor since the vapor would have rained out anyway and the effect would be pretty much the same in the end. I was only looking to the impact shocks as a source of hydraulic pressure shock waves in the sub glacial lakes and water, resulting in simultaneous releases and the possible cause of some surging triggered by the termors. Whether or not the shocks shattered the ice into pieces doesn't matter much, how much ended up in the sea to raise the level is the important part. The change in things at the end of the ice age was to pronounced to be the result of a mere change in life style. Read about the Pleistocene extinction and the disappearance of Neanderthal man. Yes they did get to the Americas by crossing water, but when did they get there? And why do the people living in Asia who didn't have to cross water at all, still have the same story? This suggests a common source before migration occurred.
edge
The drop stones at the higher elevations are evidence of a global flood due to the fact that it is impossible for the local terrain elevations to contain water to that depth. In other words, to get the water that high, you would need to flood the world. Which is why as I have been saying that these drop stones are an anomaly for the geologists.
"it has not been our objective to provide better explanations," Exactly, that is why you have failed. You have based our arguments on a great faith in orthodox theories. The absence of better explanations in your arguments shows your blind faith in the absolute correctness of orthodox science. To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith. Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say. When you can't over turn what I say, you claim I made it up or refer to your orthodoxy while failing to explain or provide evidence. When I make valid points about the effects of rain water and meltwater containing old carbon, you call it a 'wave of my hand' and ignore it, and insist on a total adherence to the absolute accuracy of carbon dating. You demand absolute compliance with the doctrines of your high priests, yet your blindly following and rejecting contrary ideas just because they are contrary to what you believe, goes against the spirit of what you claim to believe in. Science isn't suppose to be a orthodox religion, is should be open investigation of the evidence. If science rejected all new ideas and instead always based their arguments on the orthodoxy as you have been doing, scientists would still be preaching middle age science as fact. The pursuit of true science is to question and not to blindly believe because it is the accepted theory, for that reason I feel that I have been truer to the faith that you think you are defending.

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 4:30 PM wmscott has replied
 Message 228 by edge, posted 03-19-2002 8:52 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 229 by doctrbill, posted 03-20-2002 1:43 AM wmscott has not replied
 Message 235 by joz, posted 03-20-2002 9:03 PM wmscott has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 225 of 460 (7325)
03-19-2002 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by wmscott
03-19-2002 4:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wmscott:
Exactly, that is why you have failed. You have based our arguments on a great faith in orthodox theories. The absence of better explanations in your arguments shows your blind faith in the absolute correctness of orthodox science. To you I am a heretic, with apostate theories not wroth considering because I challenge what you believe is the one true faith. Like arrogant inquisitors you cite your orthodoxy as the final authority, when in reality it is the evidence that has the final say. When you can't over turn what I say, you claim I made it up or refer to your orthodoxy while failing to explain or provide evidence. When I make valid points about the effects of rain water and meltwater containing old carbon, you call it a 'wave of my hand' and ignore it, and insist on a total adherence to the absolute accuracy of carbon dating. You demand absolute compliance with the doctrines of your high priests, yet your blindly following and rejecting contrary ideas just because they are contrary to what you believe, goes against the spirit of what you claim to believe in. Science isn't suppose to be a orthodox religion, is should be open investigation of the evidence. If science rejected all new ideas and instead always based their arguments on the orthodoxy as you have been doing, scientists would still be preaching middle age science as fact. The pursuit of true science is to question and not to blindly believe because it is the accepted theory, for that reason I feel that I have been truer to the faith that you think you are defending. [/B]

JM: Umm, we had a brief e-mail discussion regarding this topic which you dropped. While you claim to be on the edge of a new discovery 'proving' a global flood, the evidence you have supplied through these pages is not coherent nor supportive of a global flood. What you have proposed, so far, is a series of 'what if' conjectures that are not woven coherently into a thesis. I'll make the same offer here as I did via e-mail. Put the story together in a coherent fashion (point-by-point) with field evidence (since you are proposing a global event, I would expect to see the evidence from around the globe). Submit it to me (I am an editor and a member of the editorial board of two journals). I will send it out for review and you can overturn science in the same manner as the rest of us. Your assertion that scientists are in blind agreement to an orthodoxy is a laughable caricature of science and scientists. Most of us spend our whole life trying to overturn orthodoxy and have our names forever etched in history. All of us are required to support our assertions with data and proper analysis. If you want your pet hypothesis to be heard, then this is not the place to do it nor is it the place to hurl unsupportable assertions about orthodoxical conspiracies against new ideas. You have to, like all the rest of us, support your assertions with testable data. Are you going to do that or not? If so, get busy writing---if not, quitcherbitchin.
Cheers
Joe meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:21 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by wmscott, posted 03-19-2002 4:38 PM Joe Meert has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 226 of 460 (7328)
03-19-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Joe Meert
03-19-2002 4:30 PM


See post 142 for a start, and I was referring to certain posters on this board, not to scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 4:30 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Joe Meert, posted 03-19-2002 6:01 PM wmscott 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