Non-marine sediments

Tranquility base writes to Joe Meert:

---

You think the flood was ruled out a long time ago. I disagree because it is such a different paradigm. I truly believe that the data has been shoehorned into gradualism precisely for the reason that it was considered the only possibility.

---

You're rewriting a history that I believe has already been described for you. It was originally believed that the construction of the modern earth was a result of the great flood, but when naturalists began investigating geologic processes in the late 18th and early 19th century the evidence they uncovered clearly indicated two things: a) a worldwide flood could not explain most geologic formations; b) the earth is far more ancient then the Bible hints at.Some first order effects are increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and increasing radiometric age determinations with increasing depth. A second order effect is evidence in some layers that they once existed at or near a surface (based upon evidence of things like footprints, burrows, streams, etc).Your motivation for changing the current model is not a large quantity of anomalous data, because none of the geologic data of layer formation, non-marine or otherwise, indicates flood causation. In fact, the vast proportion of it is sedimentary layers deposited slowly over long periods of time. How could a flood yield an appearance so alien to what flood's normally produce? You need to present a model that sounds at least superficially plausible.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

So I stand by my point that the geologists of the day didn't properly examine the possibility that the flood layed most of the rocks. I'm happy to reverse that opinion if someone shows me evidence.

---

I think the evidence has already been presented to you. There's the increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and increasing radiometric age determinations with increasing depth. There's magnetic reversals recorded on the sea floor which correlate with radiometric measurements and sedimentation rates. There's simple laws of physics you need to follow when you talk about continents and sea floors zipping rapidly about. A second order effect is evidence in some layers that they once existed at or near a surface (based upon evidence of things like footprints, burrows, streams, etc). Another is evidence within the layers themselves of slow sedimentation over periods of at least tens of thousands of years.If the Tower of Pisa is falling down and you don't know how to stop it, switching your attention to more tractable problems like mending broken statuary does not slow the fall one iota. If you don't know how to save the Titanic, moving on to something you can handle like polishing the brass won't help one bit.You have no answers for the truly significant problems with your theory, so you instead focus your attention on areas likely to be more fruitful, but that doesn't change the fact that your theory is unworkable from the outset.

---

What I am saying is that, from my historical readings, I have not come across any creationist geologist that sopke of anything remotely resembling modern flood geology.

---

The differences with regard to the significant problems are inconsequential.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy you either have not read my posts or are ignoring the fact that we believe that acclerated isotopic decay generated the heat that tectonically initiated the flood. So we expect rapid sea-floor spreading, rapid magnetic reversals and correlation with radiodecay! We could reasonably expect surges due to frictional plate slipping and hence multiple aerial exposures for up to months during the 400 days. Please stop discussing pathetic strawmen.

---

Sure I've read your posts. One of the points I made in the post this is a reply to is that you were violating the known laws of physics, and by reintroducing these points you're doing it again. Plus, as edge mentions, you're proposing events for which you have no evidence, the sole impetus for your ideas being the Bible.

---

One way or another, for us, God was behind it.

---

Well, that changes things. I, for one, have no objections to scenarios based upon miracles, so long as it's realized they are religion, not science. Until you have evidence for what you're proposing, until your proposals obey the known laws of physics, and until they're consistent with the evidence, you basically just have a viewpoint based upon religious myth.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, although our stuff is unashamedly based on Scripture we are also of the opinion that modern geological data strongly supports the flood.
...
You can laugh all you like and cry 'non-science' but we're more interested in what happened to this planet than your definition of science.

---

Well, wait a minute, maybe I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from. You mean you understand that what you're doing isn't science?--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

It's pretty close to science and by some definitions that include forensics, archeology etc it might just be science.

---

Science is based upon evidence. Since you have no evidence, and since your proposals violate known laws of physics, and since they're inconsistent with existing evidence, the resemblance to science somehow escapes me. I'm not aware that forensics and archeology are in any way similar.

---

The foundations of quantum mechanics are unscientifc. The postualtes come out of thin air.

---

The foundations of quantum mechanics are empirical, based upon evidence gathered through experiment. The foundations of your viewpoint are religious, based upon revelation. I see no resemblance here, either.

---

Same for us - there are strong hints of the flood in the data in our opinions but the 'God instigated a global flood' hypothesis is primarily from Scripture.

---

This reminds me of a question I asked earlier that I don't think was answered, but I'll put it another way. The Hindus also have their Creationists, and they, too, reject evolution, but they believe the earth and universe are of great antiquity, and that the human race goes back billions of years. They have their own way of interpreting the evidence that makes sense only to them. Naturally, an interpretation of scientific data apparent only to adherents of a particular religious group must have questionable scientific merit.Right?--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, you say we have no evidence - we see the water laid rocks around the world as evidence of the flood!

---

Sorry I wasn't more clear. The part about the Hindu viewpoint was supposed to cover this. When I said you have no evidence for your viewpoint I meant that only those inside your particular religious group draw your particular interpretations of the data. Science has no particular religious affiliation, and so what you're doing isn't science.The Hindu's look at the data and conclude it indicates a universe trillions of years old, while the very same data speaks to you of a universe only a few thousand years old. This difference should tell you something. Neither you nor the Hindus will be doing science until you let the evidence speak for itself, instead of letting religious books speak for it.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, you can go with the majority if you want. I'll go where my conscience, mind and spirit tell me the truth is.

---

I'm going with the evidence.And I'm also pointing to something we agree about, that the Hindu view of creation and the history of the universe is self-evidently wrong on a number of levels, most fundamentally because they interpret the evidence through the filter of a religious book. And what you're doing is no different than the Hindus.Aside from generalities, you don't really know where the Bible came from. You have no assurance that those who put word to scroll were inspired with the word of the Lord. But you know where the universe comes from - it comes from the hand of God. When you view the geologic layers at a roadcut or gaze up at the stars, God is speaking to you more directly and sincerely than he ever can through a book written, translated and published by men.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-18-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

The Bible is actually an incredible book...I have a host of good reasons to believe the Bible is the most amazing book ever written.

---

And I wouldn't argue. But it was written by errant men, not an infallible god. The OT contains the histories and mythologies of the Jewish people, no question an amazing story. That it's been preserved from antiquity is amazing in itself. But the geological evidence you see from your train platform every morning is God's direct testimony, and you are allowing a book by men to obscure your perception of it's truth, power and majesty.The creationist Hindus hold their holy books in just as great reverence as do you the Bible, but by giving them priority over God's direct testimony their perception of God's Word becomes as clouded as your own. God is not the great liar, seeding the Universe with erroneous evidence, nor is he the great puzzler, posing contradictions to test our faith. Wherever God's testimony is found it speaks pure and true, and the decision is always clear when the choice is between the Word of God and a book.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, it's the incredible consistency of message across the multiple authors that is evience of the Bible's divine origin.

---

If consistency of message is evidence of the divine then the Hindus have you at a disadvantage. First and foremost you have the "Great Divide" between the vengeful God of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New. Then you've got the simple Biblical contradictions that abound everywhere and are a focus of much apologetic energy. You don't even have consistency between Genesis 1 and 2, the very foundation of YECism.The Bible is indeed an inspiring work from which we can all draw joy and comfort, but the message of the Bible isn't how to view the universe but rather how to accept the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in order to live good and Christian lives and please God. In this respect the Biblical authors were often transcendent, but they quite self-evidently by their own words knew nothing of how the world came to be.

---

And the sciptures are even marred.

---

With regard to origins, right you are!--Percy

As I said, the contradictions have all been the focus of much apologetic energy, and if you choose to accept the rationalizations then that's fine for you, but believers never have any trouble accepting them. The apologetics are not usually composed to convert the non-believers but to comfort the believers. Of course you accept them.The problem for you is how to convince people to your point of view without requiring that they first become evangelical Christians. For that you'll need evidence that looks the same to everyone regardless of religious filter or absence thereof.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

If all I can achieve is to show people the reasons that some PhDed mainstream scientists believe in literal creaiton and the flood I'm happy.

---

You earned your PhD by doing good science, not by what you're doing now. How many times did you cite the Bible in your thesis, TB?If anyone wants an example of a good scientist gone bad we don't need you for that because there are famous examples out there. The most recent would probably be Fleishman and Pons, but the most famous would I guess be Fred Hoyle. He could have won the Nobel Prize in physics, but by the time the importance of his work on star evolution became apparent he had already become an embarrassment for his advocacy of the steady-state model of the universe. And he wasn't an embarrassment because he was wrong, because we weren't sure of that at the time. but because his interpretation of the evidence then available was so obviously strained and tortured. And in that respect you are playing according to Hoyle.

Tranquility base in Message 22 of thread Coal 'coincidentally correlated' with marine innundations:

---

I've enjoyed the discussion too Percy although it would be more pleasant if you stopped treating us like flat earthers!

---

If you don't like being treated like a flat-earther then stop acting like one. If the evidence really adds up to a world-wide flood it needs no help from the Bible. Imagine the greater glory to God if after objectively following the evidence not only without Biblical guidance but even in complete ignorance of it you were to find that what really happened is already in Genesis. If there is evidence of a world-wide flood out there then atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems should be able to find it as easily as evangelicals.I don't know if you've checked out the Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood thread, but over there wmscott is touting his own theory of the flood. It, too, is Biblically based, but it conflicts with your theory on just about any point you happen to name. In his introductory post he said, "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." Pretty accurate characterization.You and wmscott and dozens and dozens of others like you have been going round and round getting nowhere for decades. The fashionable Creationist theory changes with time, but no consistent progress along a single theoretical line is ever made. No YEC theory gains widespread acceptance among other YECs, and each theory dies with its primary advocate. No progress of a scientific nature can be made without following the evidence.By the way, just to mention something else that I'm sure will trouble you as little as all the other contrary evidence, while God was twiddling with natural laws here on earth to for some reason provide false radiometric and magnetic data, it didn't affect the rest of the universe at all that we can tell. Light arriving from stars 5000 light years away reveals that physical laws then were the same as now.Anyway, you want to be treated like the PhD scientist that you keep reminding us you are? Act like one.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Percy, I love science but I have come to the conclusion that there is more to this universe than science. Not out of a lack of success of science but becasue of positive experiences in Christ and of the Bible.

---

How are positive experiences in matters of faith indicative of any accuracy or reliability in matters of science? Do you consult the Bible when fixing your car? You continue to restate your initial premises without engaging the discussion. You have no comments on this, or on the Hindu viewpoint, or on God's testimony in nature versus God's testimony as supposedly recorded by men in the Bible?You imagine a God-induced world-wide flood complete with speeding continents, rapidly oscillating magnetic fields, radiometric element sorting, and sorting of biological remains with rapid transformation into fossils. But God could have intervened in any number of ways, including creating the layers instantly just as we find them. Once you propose a theory that requires an omnipotent God's intercession then there are no limits to the ways he could have interceded. For example, while God could have changed physical laws to create the appearance of age in radiometric materials without leaving any evidence behind, he could as easily have created the radiometric materials in the layers just as we find them through simple miracle without manipulating physical laws affecting radiometric decay and also without leaving any evidence behind. With no evidence to take you in either direction, any choices you make are personal preference and certainly not scientific.There is no scientific theory which uses the Bible as a reference. What leads you to believe the situation will be different for you. You actually believe that because of the positive power of Christ in your life, a completely spiritual and non-scientific influence, that therefore your particular interpretation of Genesis must be correct and that the evidence to support it must be out there somewhere? Why?

---

You read my recent posts in this thread. I think the data does talk flood. The 'just so' stories trying to explain near continental sized correlated non-marine strata via gradualism are poor science.

---

I think you need to read this thread again, especially the exchange with Wehappyfew beginning at post #10. Wehappyfew mentioned many, many points, but to take just one, paleosols complete with evidence of streams, burrows, footprints, etc, interspersed among the layers are more than sufficient all by themselves to falsify your view.

---

The starlight and radiometriuc issues have to be looked at together. It's early days on this stuff.

---

No it is not early days. ICR was founded in the 1950s, and Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood a little before. In that time we've discovered tons of subatomic particles, resolved the neutrino paradox, discovered evidence verifying the Big Bang, greatly expanded the known fossil record, verified plate tectonics, discovered that the earth's magnetic field oscillates, determined the size and age of the universe, wiped out smallpox, developed computers, gone to the moon, sent probes to the far reaches of the solar system, I could go on and on.What has Creationism done during the same period? You've done about as much as those searching for evidence of ESP, telekinesis and pyramid power. Your view has developed as much coherency and evidence over the past half-century as those who believe an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell, New Mexico, or as those searching for the lost city of Atlantis.

---

I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can...

---

I sometimes wonder if you keep reminding us that you're a PhD scientist because you realize no one would ever suspect it from what you say.But my deeper concern is your apparent belief that it's okay to use your scientific credentials as a lever. If you're arguments have merit then they don't need your sheepskin for a prop, just as real evidence needs no help from the Bible.And of what use is it anyway if you persuade someone not through the cogency of your arguments but simply because you once did enough science to earn a PhD? Someone persuaded in this manner certainly wouldn't be able to reproduce your arguments on their own. And do you use this approach all the time? Do you get in the kitchen and say, "I'm a PhD scientist, so you can trust me when I say you have to add a pinch of thyme." Or, "I'm a PhD scientist, so I know what I'm talking about when I tell you the shortest way to the interstate is via Route 6."

---

(ii) scientifically look at origins

---

But you're not scientifically looking at origins, because you're including revelation as interpreted by a particular religious sect, an interpretation not even widely shared among members of the sect, and which is also opposed by the views of sects of other religions.

---

(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist side

---

If I ignore the law of gravity then I have data that the cow did indeed jump over the moon. And even with all the data you ignore under the excuse of "We'll have to look at that someday", you're interpretations are still tortured, at worst requiring actual manipulation of physical laws. All you're demonstrating is that some PhD scientists don't know how to interpret data or formulate theory.You're job here isn't to be calm, composed and courageous in the face of severe criticism, but to actually respond meaningfully to what is being said. So far your posts here are just a lengthy exercise in self-deception. You have to take our feedback, which is mostly evidence, understand it, falsify it or incorporate it into your viewpoint, then return with new arguments designed to persuade where the old arguments failed. To merely keep stating, "I still see a global flood in the evidence," is an admirable demonstration of stick-to-itiveness, but of little else.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

I've only ever mentioned the PhD thing in direct response to points made by you guys on that issue. You can check your archives on that point because I know I specfically try not to use the argument from authoruty angle.

---

You make the argument from your own authority very frequently. This is from one of your very first messages here:

Tranquility Base writes in Message 19:

---

I'm actually a genomics researcher (but still a physicist at heart) and so I know a bit about the nature of comparative genomics.

---

This is from you just a couple hours later:

Tranquility Base writes in Message 25:

---

...I, as a scientist,...
but I, as a fellow human being, and a scientist,...

---

These are your own words, TB, from just the first few hours of your time here, and there are many more examples. You mention your credentials at the drop of a hat. You deny using the argument from authority, yet you stated that as your precise goal right here:

Tranquility Base writes in Message 115:

---

I'm here to show that PhDed scientists can

​

(i) trust the sciptures
(ii) scientifically look at origins
(iii) admit when data is against them
(iv) demonstrate that a lot of the data is on the creationist side

---

Denying the obvious isn't going to work. If you don't like your incessant self-serving arguments from your own authority being called to your attention then don't do it.Your other points have just as little validity, but I have no time now and will have to address them later.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-24-2002]

Continuing my earlier reply...

Tranquility Base writes:

---

My confidence in the Bible first comes from my experiences of Christ...

---

The Bible is a book written by men. Like any book, it contains truths, untruths, and all shades in between. The accuracy of one portion has no bearing on the accuracy of another. The Hindus are also convinced of the divinity and accuracy of their sacred texts. You are both wrong for the same reasons.

---

I similarly have no reason to doubt that the creation was literal and I have told you before how neatly Genesis, Hebrews, 2 Pet and Revelations work together if the earth's history is seen as two 7000 year periods.

---

Even most evangelicals disagree with you, since in a literal interpretation there is no room for 14,000 years of earth history because of the generations since Adam.

---

What you see as 'miraculous sorting' etc we see as what simply happened in a complex dynamical environment.

---

For which you have no evidence, and your proposals violate known physical laws. You have yet to describe a way in which a flood could produce the fossil distribution in the geologic column, and your problems are only compounded when you add the sedimentary, radiometric and magnetic data.

---

I see a big difference between God creating layers with dinosuar fossils and God instigating a global flood which incidentally buried dinosaurs.

---

Once you say, "And then a miracle happens...", there is no way to know which miraculous approach God would choose.

---

I have responded to paleosoils on many occasions...

---

Meaningfully? Only in your imagination. Here's your explanation this time:

---

You might be very disappointed to find out their true nature. The dinosuar footprints found all over your country are begining to reveal a very strong pattern. These paleosoils are mostly ofvery low relief and display footprints of animals almost always running stright and often all in the same direction. I wouldn't get too excited about your paleosoils. They do not seem to be real habitats.

---

First, I doubt very much the "footprints revealing a pattern" part. What would it prove, anyway?Second, you can't pick and choose your data. You're forgetting burrows, stream beds, roots, sedimentary patterns, etc.Third, you're still forgetting the radiometric, magnetic and fossil distribution data.Fourth, soil takes a long time to accumulate. It doesn't form suddenly just before animals run atop it.Fifth, there are many places where the layer sequence contains multiple paleosols.Even if I wanted to be persuaded, how could I accept a scenario so full of holes that there's no possible way I could explain it to someone else. You not only don't explain the holes, you frequently don't seem to be aware of them or are ignoring them. A true scientist would face the data in a forthright way.

---

The white hole and acclerated decay are very recent ideas - it is early days on these issues.

---

It is not early days. The Creationist claim that the flood was a real event goes way back, Creationists just keep changing their approach to explaining it. First there was the vapor canopy, then there was the flowing from beneath the earth, then there's the glacial flows. Your white holes and accelerated decay are just the latest ploys in attempting to make an impossible flood scenario sound plausible to those with little knowledge of science.--Percy

Tranquility Base writes:

---

OK - sometimes I do want to make a statement as a scientist. Fair enough.

---

Uh, no, not "Fair enough," since that's not what I said.To the extent each of us is able we're all making statements as scientists. What you're doing is different. You're holding yourself up as an example of valid scientific behavior when what you're really doing is pursuing a theory based upon religious revelation. There is nothing scientific about what you're doing, and there is certainly no honor in implying to those who don't know better that it is. Science is based upon evidence.The truth is that you are engaged in a religious pursuit that you hope will one day have scientific ramifications. Why not say so? It's fine for scientists to engage in non-scientific activities, they just shouldn't imply they're doing science when they're not.--Percy