YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?

As explained in post #75 of the other thread for completely independent theological reasons I beleive the creation days were probably 1000 year days (2nd pet, Ps, Heb 4, Rev 22) giving more time for creation day 3 events. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=23&m=75#75I'm more and more convinced that there was no creation with 'appearence of age'. The bedrock was created, the day 3 emergence of landfrom sea generated the Precambrian layering, the flood generated the Cambrian to Cretaceous and the glacial melting generated the Cenezoic.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]

There was a tectonic/watery like event on creation day #3 - the land appeared out of the sea. Read my posts on the subject Edge (see above). I subscribe to 1000 year days for the creation week (for theological reasons - 2nd Pet) and the science needs more than a day too.Flood geologists presume that men etc were laid down in upper strata but these strata were washed away as the water receeded.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

^ There are actually 365,000 days in 1000 years. As I've mentioned before I await simualtions of how the flood really occurred in detail. I will post a summary of Woodmorappe's preliminary work after I've fully absorbed it.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

Joe, the vast majority of creationists tend to agree on an awful lot though. I can honestly say that the only residual differnces I would have with ICR and AIG is on the issue of the 1000 year days and thermodynamics. The theological one is a truly minor point although I personally think it is (i) strongly hinted in scripture and (ii) is the only way to account for the pre-flood sediments sensibly.On the scriptual issue Heb 4 talks about a rest day like the creation week rest day. Rev 22 talks of a 1000 year millenium. The 'day of the Lord' spoken of throughout scripture (OT and NT) describes events that occur on either side of the millenium of Rev 22. And 2nd Pet 3 talks of 'Do not be ignorant that 1000y = 1 day etc' in the context of a discussion of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming! This even was a taching in a segment of the early church. I am aware of the mainstream Christian interpretation but I disagree with it for this paragraph's reasons.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-03-2002]

^ If you think they're equally compatible interpretations then I'm glad you're not in church leadership!

2 Pet 3:3-9 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.Heb 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.Rev 20:4 They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.The Heb 4 'Sabbath day rest' (ie 7th day) to come is clearly the 1000 year period of Rev 20. And Peter tells us 1 day = 1000y in the context of creation, flood and the 2nd coming.I wont be overly dogmatic on it but I wont agree it's a ridiculous interpretation.

But only the literal interpretation of 2 Pet 3 unifies Heb 4 with Rev 20.

^ I regularly use a half dozen translations and I can gaurentee you that almost nothing I have to say about the gospel, or this point in particular, is uniquely dependent on a single ambiguous verse.You are aware that the dead sea scrolls closed the debate on the inaccuracies of the last two millenia of transcriptions (in our favour)? Regardless, I also do not deny that some inaccuracies have crept in.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-05-2002]

Wehappy, thanks for suppressing your (in most ways understandable) dislike of creationism long enough to make that post above.You asked Q1.Why are all the glacial evidences confined to the very end of the Tertiary? Again you'll have to educate me but I understand that the classic ice ages occurred in this period from a mainstream POV. We accept superposition etc so we agree with you (if that was correct) that this period is characterised by ice-ages. For us we (non-dogmatically) align it with a nuclear winter caused by flood volcanism. For us all of that Permian Siberian volcansim etc occurred in the flood year so we expect a strong nuclear winter followed by an equally catastrophic return to equilibrium via glacial melting. You don't get that catastrophic melting in your model becasue you appeal to more graudla causes. We have a sudden cooling and an understandably sudden warming.EDIT - the ice-ages happened only at the end of the tertiary? Let me do some reading or tell me more and I'll get back to you.You asked Q2. about collapsing the Cenozoic into the last 4500 years. We would collapse it to a briefer period after the flood for the reasons mentioned in the answer to Q1 above. We imagine the situation exponentially returning to a shifted equilibrium like any shifting equilibrium process.But I will have to do some reading on the Cenozoic period and ice ages or you'll have to correct me (or both).So I agree with your suspicions of our model now that I have reread your post.So your problem for us, the "massive, hot igneous bodies - like the Deccan Flood basalts, and spreading mid-ocean crust, and the batholiths of the Sierra Nevadas, etc"? First, I'll let you in on a secret. Creationists are often correct in assuming that such work has never really been done. Why? Not because mainstream scientists aren't any good but because why would you do such a study? You know you had millions of years! But maybe it is a problem for creationists. We should both check this one out. Simply stating it is not the same as referencing a study that shows the cooling couldn't happen.We already know (as of 9 months ago) that the fine structure constant (involves e, h and c if I remember) has changed over the history of the universe at the ppm (or ppb) level I think. Creationists are finding (see the RATE book) that decay processes can be finely dependent on such constants. I doubt it could be quite so finely tuned so I would expect some other constant to be involved. And it is either a dynamic of the universe or an impulse by God or both for us that dies down one way or another.I've got a feeling the career flood geologists are talking about an impulse in the creation week as well as the flood. Obviously if this was studied quantitatively my 1000 year days would come into it. The reason I still like my 1000 year creation days is primarily theological although I can agree with you guys on one thing - I can't imagine the Precambiran being generated in 24 hours!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-06-2002]

Moose I've read far more mainstream geoglogy than flood geology and as you all know I am not a geologist.In that context I'll speculate for all sorts of theological and scientific reasons that the earth's surface was created as unlayered bed rock underwater. As usual even that I would have as some sort of dynamical process. eg - the rock may have been liquid and came to it's own temperature and vertical compositonal equilibrium.I'm happy to hear your comment but remember this is just off the top of my head.

Wehappy, I'm talking about the evoltuion of physical constants as a mechanism for accerlated radioisotpoic decay.What exactly is your cooling problem? Are these lava beds too cool today? Is there evidence that it had to have completely cooled before hte next sediment? Who says it's a problem? I'm not saying it isn't, but what is the specific problem? Obviously I simply propose that the flood sedimentary record is interspersed with lava flows that cooloed partially before the next layers and finally while buried. Quantitatively - who knows? But we need to identify a specific quantitative problem before we spend time on it.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-11-2002]

John, your right that most of my translaitons are based on the same sources. But the dead sea scrolls are an independent source for the last 2000 years at least. The rest only goes back another 1500 years so we can indepnednetly go back more than half way and show that the discrepencies are minor. I use NIV, KJV, NKJV, amplified, RSV and Hebrew NT. I would be surprised if the NIV didn't use the dead seas scrolls but I'm not an expert on this.The two different creaiton 'orders' are not a problem. The first account is a time ordered account, the second one is a logical order filling in various points from the first. Some translations might put 'then' and 'next' into the second account but these are not necessarily in the original source.

John - slip of the tongue - I meant Greek NT.Ok I'll agree the NIV doesn't incorporate the Dead Sea scrolls. All I know is that the parts of the dead sea scrolls that were viewed early on (in the 1960s?) created quite a stir at the time becasue they strongly supported the exisitng sources. I'm aware that the Qumram manuscripts make it clear that there was no uniform or official version of the Hebrew Scriptures but I'm also pretty sure it doens't bring much ambiguity to the 39 OT books accepted by the Protestant church. We happen to believe that the 66 books (27 + 39) chosen are God's intention for the church.Why does "male and female created he them" have to mean at exactly the same time? You have just demonstrated that you are trying to find something that is not there John! That verse clearly means he created humans in two varieties regardless of the timing.

MooseWe call that 'increased rate of processes' the flood.

^ And what was your PhD disertation about Mooth?