Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 11:37 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, Tanypteryx (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 52/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 1 of 460 (968)
12-19-2001 2:27 PM


No one is going to be able to prove the flood using old mythical theories that are contary to everything we know in science and just plain common sense. There is a book that really does solve the mystery of the flood. It is basically a geology book that proves the earth has had a recent earth wide flood as described in the Bible. This book has all the answers, it explains in detail exactly how the flood happened.

There have been many Scientific Creationist books over the years that have tried to prove the flood, but they have all failed because they ignore basic scientific facts and twist everything in a vain attempt to support their impossible theories and end up only deluding themselves. The science in this book on the other hand is very good, in fact the first few chapters show the errors in currently used flood theories and why they don't work. The author disproves the young earth theory, the everything was laid down at the flood theory, the canopy theory, etc. He then goes on to show that the earth has indeed recently had a major ice age and that it was the sudden collapse of the ice sheets surging into the oceans that flooded the world. (The 40 days of rain was caused by one or more comet impacts which triggered the collapse of the ice sheets and blasted water and/or ice into near earth orbits that fell back to earth all over the globe.) He ties this in with evidence from all over the world that points towards this happening, evidence that the scientific creationists have completely missed since they don't even accept that the earth has had an ice age.

Since this is a geology book and the author of course accepts the fossil record as factual, he is able to tie in the Pleistocene extinction and a lot of other supporting geological evidence with the flood. The creationists can't make these connections since they believe the fossil record was all created at once by the flood. The author puts all the pieces together and runs it like a movie explaining step by step how the flood occurred. Each step is supported by quotes from geology books with evidence from around the world showing that these events actually happened. The chapter on Looking at the Numbers is really more for the geologists than the average reader, has a lot of deep geology about how the flood affected the earth.

A new geology theory is presented called Ice Age Flexing that reveals how the deluge and the comings and goings of the earlier ice ages has affected the earth. Explanations also include, if the flood waters drained into the deepening oceans, how is it then that the oceans have islands today? Worth reading if you can plow through it, answers all the questions that till now no one was able to answer. The author presents photographs of finding microscopic marine diatoms in Midwestern soil samples. These diatoms are traces left by the flood all over the world. The author even explains step by step how to find these diatoms so the reader can duplicate the results and prove the flood for his or herself. After reading this book you will probably want to take Morris's book the "Genesis Flood" and throw it into the trash can. (if you haven't already) This book completely destroys creationism's flood theories by replacing them with one that actually works and can be verified scientifically. The book is called "Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood" and is worth reading if you want to be up to date on flood geology.

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-20-2001]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 12-20-2001 10:41 AM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 18 by nator, posted 01-14-2002 9:19 AM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 103 by no2creation, posted 02-13-2002 8:08 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 2 of 460 (1015)
12-20-2001 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wmscott
12-19-2001 2:27 PM


I found I couldn't read the review until I broke it up into paragraphs, that's why I edited it. Then I tried to find the book on the web and discovered that wmscott (aka William Scott Anderson) is the author. The book is listed at Amazon where Mr. Anderson has listed the identical review:

Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Authors are more than welcome to plug their books here, but please reveal you're the author when you do so.

So, William, can I presume that the paragraphs divisions in the review were lost in the cut-n-pastes and that the book itself has paragraphs?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wmscott, posted 12-19-2001 2:27 PM wmscott has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 12-22-2001 7:13 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 460 (1128)
12-22-2001 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Percy
12-20-2001 10:41 AM


Well, it must be good because the only reviewer gave it 5 stars! That reviewer was.......... yup Mr Scott

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Percy, posted 12-20-2001 10:41 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 4 of 460 (1431)
01-01-2002 9:52 AM


Yes the book has paragraphs. I was really hoping for a more meaningful discussion on this board, but I guess you sometimes have to take what you can get. At less you guys were able to figure out that Wm. Scott Anderson, William Scott Anderson and wmscott are the same person. Your powers of deduction underwhelms me. If I had wanted to hide my identity I would have done so, on the Internet it is certainly easy enough to do. The reason I didn't state that I was the author in first post is that I didn't know this board's policy on the matter. Now any body want to talk about the flood?
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 01-01-2002 10:12 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 460 (1436)
01-01-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by wmscott
01-01-2002 9:52 AM


What do you think of the theory of William Ryan and Walter Pitman that flood mythology is based upon a real event, the flooding of a then much smaller and freshwater Black Sea by the Mediterranean about 7000 years ago through a breach at the Bosporus. Robert Ballard, the discoverer of the Titanic, uncovered support for this theory when he located an ancient freshwater shoreline at a considerable depth.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by wmscott, posted 01-01-2002 9:52 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 6 of 460 (1467)
01-02-2002 10:50 AM


In my book I refer frequently to Ryan & Pitman's book. In my opinion they did very good work, but failed to see that it was part of a bigger event. For example they failed to connect the sudden flooding of the Black Sea with the sudden flooding of the Caspian Sea which occurred at the same time. As the flood waters rose they flooded the Med causing it to pour into the Black Sea which in turn flooded the Caspian Sea and so on. This is shown by the geologic evidence and by the pattern of sea life. Things from the Med are found in the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea as well. The Caspian seal is from the arctic ocean, showing how far the flooding of the black sea reached.
Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-03-2002 10:28 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 7 of 460 (1500)
01-03-2002 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by wmscott
01-02-2002 10:50 AM


You're going to have to fill me in more on what your book says. I got the impression from your review that the end of the most recent ice age plays a significant role, but that ended 10,000 years ago, while the Black Sea flooding only occurred about 7,000 years ago. Does your book somehow draw these two events together? Or is its source of the flood water not glaciers?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by wmscott, posted 01-02-2002 10:50 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 8 of 460 (1519)
01-03-2002 4:12 PM


I believe the two events are connected. The dating methods used really only give approximate dates in "radiocarbon" years not calendar years. The date for the end of the ice age is a ballpark figure also which has ranged anywhere from 30K to 10K. In my book I leave it open as to which date is correct, but heavily favor the biblical date considering the source. What happened at that time is the sudden release of ice and water into the oceans raised the sea level which caused the sudden flooding of the Black Sea. As I mentioned, there is evidence pointing to this chain of events and it is a logical chain reaction.
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 10:24 AM wmscott has not yet responded
 Message 113 by doctrbill, posted 02-15-2002 2:42 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 9 of 460 (1549)
01-04-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by wmscott
01-03-2002 4:12 PM



wmscott writes:
The date for the end of the ice age is a ballpark figure also which has ranged anywhere from 30K to 10K.

Hmmm. I've seen estimates ranging between 10K and 11K years ago, never 30K.

The 10,000 years-ago figure for the end of the last ice age and the 7,000 years-ago figure for the Black Sea flood are in normal years, not radiocarbon years, so it's an apples-to-apples comparison. And aren't the uncertainties of radiocarbon dating tiny compared to the 3,000 year difference?


What happened at that time is the sudden release of ice and water into the oceans raised the sea level which caused the sudden flooding of the Black Sea.

I can see how that might happen, but how do you address the issue of where this water is now, since we haven't returned to an ice age and refrozen all the water into glaciers?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by wmscott, posted 01-03-2002 4:12 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 10 of 460 (1563)
01-04-2002 3:29 PM


The 30K date is the old date used when it was thought the Ice Age ended a long time ago. More recent dating has moved it up to about 10K, the current range depending on who's book you are reading, is anywhere from maybe as low as 9K up to over 14K. On the dates being in calendar years, no they are not. Calendar years are events dated by historical sources. dates fixed by carbon dating are in carbon years. the best absolute dates on these events are from carbon dating, hence they are in carbon years not calendar years.

where the water went is simple, it is in the oceans. The ice age pulled enough water out of the oceans long enough that the ocean basins flexed upward to make up for the missing pressure, this is called hydrostatic pressure. The sudden return of the previously removed water occurred faster than the sea floor could be pushed back down. Since the oceans were in effect too small to hold all the water, the earth was flooded for a time. Then as the pressure pushed the sea floor down, the water drained into the deeping oceans. Since the earth inside has a constant volume, the pressure that pushed the ocean floors down tended to also push the land areas up. This up lifting of land areas has been pronounced in areas that were once covered by large amounts of glacial ice. the combined effects of increased pressure and the ocean bottoms and a reduction in the weight of glaciers on land, resulted in a great uplifting of many mountainous areas to heights far higher than they had in the ice age when they were buried under the ice.


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 9:04 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 11 of 460 (1581)
01-05-2002 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by wmscott
01-04-2002 3:29 PM



wmscott writes:
Calendar years are events dated by historical sources. Dates fixed by carbon dating are in carbon years. The best absolute dates on these events are from carbon dating, hence they are in carbon years not calendar years.

I'm not so sure about this. Most laypeople aren't aware of radiocarbon years, and at a minimum I'm certain that articles written for laypeople are rendered in normal years. The National Geographic article about Ballard, Pitman and Ryan's work in the Black Sea says:

By studying core samples of sediments and dating seashells, they determined that the flood most likely occurred about 7,500 years ago and that the shoreline of the ancient lake could be found 500 feet (150 meters) below the surface.
...
At the end of the last ice age some 12,000 years ago, oceans all over the world began to rise as glaciers melted.

I'd be pretty surprised if these were radiocarbon years. And regardless whether they're both radiocarbon years or normal years, they're obviously both in the same units, and so you have, at least according to this article, a 4500 year gap.

About the sinking of the ocean basins and rise of mountains, is there any corroborating evidence? I can think of a few non-confirming points. First, rapid deformation generates heat, and in the case of the world-wide deformations you propose it seems likely the heat would have been pretty devastating.

Second, geological studies indicate that mountain ranges are underlain by a much thicker mantle. The tectonic movements which push up mountain ranges evidently push down, too. This thicker mantle underlying mountain ranges is inconsistent with your view that the land in general, particular that most covered by glaciers, was pushed up by pressure generated from a sinking sea floor.

Third, shouldn't continental shelf areas around the world show signs of the repeated deformation of stretching and compression as various ice ages came and went?

And don't you have the same problem with the lack of evidence for extensive flooding that YECs have? For instance, shouldn't there be global signs of flood retreat?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by wmscott, posted 01-04-2002 3:29 PM wmscott has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 01-05-2002 11:44 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3306 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 12 of 460 (1584)
01-05-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
01-05-2002 9:04 AM


Quick interjection........There may be other dating methods, but in addition to radiocarbon dating, Thorium/Protactinium, & Thorium 230/232 ratios were used to date deep dea cores.

There's no specific need to talk in radiocarbon years, other methods were available to corroborate.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 01-05-2002 9:04 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 13 of 460 (1604)
01-06-2002 3:11 AM


Yes, most people are totally unaware of the fact that these respective events are not dated in regular years. Which is why events sometimes seem to shift in time as more is learned. Many scientists have repeatedly warned about the hazard of taking scientifically dated dates as being real dates.

The dates must be used with caution. . . .Therefore, time spans based on radiocarbon dating should be read as "radiocarbon" years, not regular "calendar" years . . . Neither of these radiometric dating techniques, nor any other, can supply dates that are acceptable at face value . . . Human error is an ever-present possiblity . . . Just a speck of contaminant throws the computed date off . . . The personal element, however innocent does tinge research. A researcher at times cannot help leaning in his interpretation of data toward the answer he wants to find. And there is another tendency of which we have to be aware because it bears upon Ice Age dating. It is the desire to find earlier and still earlier beginnings of things, as though the oldest thing found is a record, and it is an achievement to break record . . . Will the trend someday change, shrinking the tape measure, requiring us to shorten our time scale? (Ice Age Lost by Gwen Schultz 1974, pages 27-29)

The above is not that old of a book, in the early 20th century the end of the ice age was dated at 30K years ago, now it is dated at less than half that age. Events dated by carbon dating and other systems are not anchored in time, it is not impossible for the two events to have happened at the same time. Considering the effects of a rapid rise in sea level would have, it just makes too much sense, plus the evidence from surrounding areas indicates the flooding did not stop with the Black Sea. Flooding caused by a rising sea level as the evidence indicates, only could have happened at the end of the ice age when large amounts of water were returned to the sea.

Heat due to flexing the earth would only be a problem if the flexing was limited to the surface. most of the flexing occurred at great depths inside the earth. The mountains are floating and their thickened base is what causes them to rise above the surrounding land. In the ice age the mountains were carrying a heavy load of mountain glaciers which had pressed them down into the earth. the removal of large amounts of water from the oceans in the ice age to form the ice sheets had caused the oceans to shrink and their basins to flex upward. The upward flexing of ocean floors combined with the weight on glaciated land areas, caused a general depression of the land with a proportionately larger depression of the mountainous areas due to the weight of the mountain glaciers. Once the ice age had ended, and the water returned too quickly to the sea flooding the world, the shift in pressures pushed the mountains up.

This uplift is still going on and is why all tall mountains are measured as rising yet today. This shift in pressure beneath the mountains combined with the uplift, has created or in some cases added to the cracks in the earth's crust, through which some of the hot material which has up lifted the mountains, has leaked out to the surface and caused secondary volcanic eruptions. These types of eruptions are associated with tall mountain chains a round the world. Plate tectonics created the mountains, but it was this shifting of internal pressures at the end of the ice age that caused the volcanic activity and lift them to the heights they are at today.

In my book I develop a theory called Ice Age Flexing which explains this flexing in detail and the effects this has had on the earth and the landforms effected by it. A number of geologists have previously theorized on deep flexing occurring, some have even associated it with ice ages. In my theory I just put the pieces together and show the extent of the flexing and explain the mechanism behind it. And yes there are signs of repeated flexing from the advances and retreats of the ice age. This shows up in when some volcanic activity has occurred, and in erosional deposits this pattern shows up strongly.

It has been long noted that there is a pulsation pattern in ice age erosion. Stream terraces are built in ice age advances only to be down cut in the retreats. The reason for this is the down warping of the land reduces the grade of the stream or river causing the water to move more slowly causing a build up of sediment, when the ice retreats, the land rebounds and the grade is steepened and the water moves faster cutting down into the ice age sediments creating the ice age stream terraces.

[Edited for readability --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-08-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 01-10-2002 9:32 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18377
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 14 of 460 (1870)
01-10-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by wmscott
01-06-2002 3:11 AM



wmscott writes:
Yes, most people are totally unaware of the fact that these respective events are not dated in regular years. Which is why events sometimes seem to shift in time as more is learned. Many scientists have repeatedly warned about the hazard of taking scientifically dated dates as being real dates.

I believe that outside the technical literature years are rendered in regular years, not radiocarbon years. Where the excerpt from National Geographic says 7,500 years ago and 12,000 years ago it means regular 365.25 day years.

Don't you have the same problem as YECs, namely no evidence of a sudden global flood ever, let alone in the last 10,000 years.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wmscott, posted 01-06-2002 3:11 AM wmscott has not yet responded

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 4359 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 15 of 460 (1899)
01-11-2002 11:58 AM


In science dating using in direct methods, is not totally reliable, which is why historical dates are given greater weight than dates derived from tests. The errors that have occurred with the dating of geologically recent events is well known. Dates from scientific dating methods are approximate, frequently given with a error range of plus or minus so many years with a 90% estimate that the time the event actually occurred at falls inside of that range. This is why the month or the day of the week that the event happened on is not also given, the dating systems are not that precise. Even with a good date with a 90% reliability, it is still acknowledged there is an estimated 10% chance that the date is in error, and that is not even allowing for other errors such as contamination. The dating systems in use are in general very good, but it is important to remember their limitations, it is important to look at each date and what it is based on. Things change, better understandings are gained and dates are adjusted, it happens.

No I don't have the same problem as the YECs, because I use geology instead of abusing it. Actually there is plenty of evidence to support a recent global flood in geology. We have for example the Michigan whale bones, found in deposits from the end of the ice age in an area the sea according to current geology has been in ages. the link below is to a site with more information on the whale bones, it is a creationist site but the information conforms with what I have read in books on the matter.

http://sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Other evidence includes the discovery in Wisconsin at even higher elevations than the Michigan finds, of marine diatoms left by the flood waters. These diatoms are part of a world wide deposit that once surveyed will show the extent of the deluge. We also have glacial drop stones in non glaciated areas, raised shorelines dated to the end of the ice age and inland bodies of water with marine life. This is just some of the evidence supporting a global flood. While it is not overwhelming at this point since the research on this new flood theory is so recent, it is in correct to say that there is no evidence of a recent global flood. Hopefully as this new theory becomes better known, more research will be done around the world and more things will come to light.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 01-12-2002 3:32 PM wmscott has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019