quote:Calculations based on the Septuagint have traditionally dated creation to around 5500 BC, while the Samaritan Torah produces a date around 4300 BC, and the Masoretic a date around 4000 BC. Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC). The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to 1 September, 5509 BC, Mara de greda and her followers to 5199 BC, while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC. Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.
After the Masoretic text was published, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support. Proposed calculations of the date of creation, using the Masoretic from the 10th century — 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (27 April, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Srensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC) and Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC).
I want to clarify what other participants, especially Jar, have been pointing out about landscapes like the ones you showed in Message 345, like this one:
You've been calling attention to eroded ditches in images like this one to call attention to how erosion makes landscapes uneven. Others have been trying to call your attention to the incredibly flat plains stretching off into the distance in the backgrounds of your images. ...
Another thing to point out is that when we look at the eroded faces inside those ditches they show the parallel (pseudo)horizontal lines that Faith keeps harping about ... and you can keep eroding the faces back into the hillside and they will continue to show "flat" beds of sediment ... until you cut down into older layers with a different geological history.
When you only look at one plane section through the sedimentation you miss the information in the orthogonal direction.
Yeah, no expert but I did just spend much of the day researching this thing that Faith throws out seemingly to answer so many different sedimentary questions raised. I'm pretty damn sure it's not the magic bullet that she imagines.
We can readily see that these different layers are predominantly sorted by their settling rates (based on size and density). We can also see that the Sands and Siliciclastic Muds are products of erosion that are necessarily products of the adjacent lands being eroded there and deposited here, rather than being transported from some distant transoceanic location.
Then we refer to Message 50 of Dr A's excellent geology thread Introduction To Geology we can see that one element of the the Carbonate Sediments would be produced by the erosion of limestones exposed in the adjacent eroding landscape -- a chemical process that dissolves the Calcium Carbonate in fresh water which then precipitates in salt water when transported to the oceans.
However, other more dominant components of this Carbonate Sediments layer are the shells and detritus from inter-tidal, reef and other littoral zone organisms growing in situ (within the zone that sunlightpenetrates).
And then we have the last layer group, Coccolith Foram Ooze, which is formed from Biochemical sediment from the shells of diatoms, foraminifers, etc., in the Epipelagic and Mesopelagic zones of the open ocean (again the zones where sunlight penetrates).
This gives us the horizontal distribution above
Coccolith Foram Ooze
We can also see that there should be some interbedding of the marine life detritus with the Sands and Siliciclastic Muds layers, and that only when the horizontal reach of Siliciclastic Muds is reached would you find marine life growing on top of the previous generations of marine life in a distinct layer.
Now I find it rather difficult to envisage a system of waves orbiting a flooded globe that could duplicate these deposition conditions and environments, but perhaps Faith can explain these details from her armchair of profound knowledge ....
And I'm also talking about a long term transgression and regression and certainly not "waves," only I think the model covers the Flood timing of one months-long transgression followed by a couple months at its maximum height, followed by a months-long regression. There's no reason the principle wouldn't apply to this model.
So (a) how do you generate these periods (where does the water go)? Are there now towers of water slowly moving around the planet ???
And (b) how do you explain the life that grows over periods of years in just a couple months? ....
And again, get your surface as flat as you can, does the rain stop? Does the wind stop? If not they are going to continue to cut into the surface and unsettle its flatness.
And the EVIDENCE which shows your conjecture to be nonsense:
Nice. Utah salt flats?
Part of the problem is that normally sections we view are made by rivers cutting them, and so the sections are parallel to the river\valley, and Faith thinks that you should see the cross-section of the erosion pattern instead.
... But if you break the rock to look at an unweathered surface, the actual color of the material is a rather boring gray. ...
What? It doesn't look weathered by millions of years???
Of course geologists have the advantage of being able to look at unweathered rock from fresh breaks (one of the reasons they carry those cool hammers) while pictures only show weathered surfaces, which only occurs after the rocks are exposed ...
I got to use one to dig out some trilobites in Ohio during a high school field trip (which was a little difficult if I don't believe in Ohio)
I just want to see what happens when the pebble drops into the flour paste, I don't see that water is needed beyond the amount to create a consistency that the pebble can penetrate without dropping too far into it. There should also be no need for sand afterward. The idea is to see if the existing medium forms over it without any additions.
You could use a flour sifter the "deposit" the sediment in even coats.
But I think you would see enough effect with sand in water. Collored sand could be spread in thin layers in a glass container (old aquarium? and this would allow you to see a side section.
Use a steel nut for the block and drop it down the inside face of the glass to observe the indentation\splash?
Sifting the flour would work for layering and that's a good idea except that it's hard to get flour to absorb water so I'm going to have to start by mixing that up, then testing it for consistency, dropping pebbles or nuts into it to see how deep they go, before I try forming anything approximating layers.
One of the problems I have with water and water is that you will end up with more of a batter than particles in suspension.
The reason for trouble mixing is surface tension, so you could add soap or (wood) alcohol to the water to cut that down.
I'm going to write something up on the 'fluid' topic later today. The thing is that sediments are, indeed, not fluids, ... but they can be fluidized.
Another term I remember from soils class is plasticity, where material is not loose sand or gravel, nor is it solidified rock. It behaves in a plastic manner, deforming under stress\pressure and not rebounding when stress\pressure is removed. It also would not flow down slope to level out due to cohesion and internal friction. Wet clay is an example.
... bad for building foundations (leaning tower of Pisa?)