In Jesus' Name Productions wanted to make a movie about the fludde. They wanted it to reflect the most up-to-date views of creation "scientists". So in 2011 they assembled a bunch of them (including Walt "Hydropants" Brown, who walked out early after nobody would buy his BS) and conducted a Flood Science Review. I have the PDF of their book if anyone wants something specific from it, but obviously I can't hand it out.
From the introduction:
quote:We believe a blockbuster level movie about the Biblical Flood has enormous potential. We believe The Flood movie could have historic impact throughout the world, if the science upon which it is based can be sufficiently defended. It could even represent a significant challenge to the validity of the theory of Evolution, and the history of mankind and our planet. Therefore, this Flood Science Review was put in place to review the latest Creation and Flood Science to determine if our models are at a sufficient level of maturity and defensibility on which to base a major motion picture. Authors were invited and sought out from a number of different perspectives:
Old Earth - No Global Flood
There are many Christians who are scientists, as well as, the vast majority of secular scientists, who firmly believe that there is abundant evidence that the Earth is old and no global flood has ever happen. If this position is correct, there is no need for our movie. Hence, we sought out authors who were willing to defend this position.
There are many Christians who are scientists, who believe the Bible teaches a local Flood rather than a Global Flood. If this position is correct, there is no need for our movie. Hence, we sought out authors who were willing to defend this position as well.
A Flood model is a model that attempts to explain how the Flood happened. Generally, this should begin before the Flood and describe how the Flood was initiated, the stages of the Flood and the post-Flood effects on the Earth.
Pre-Flood World Models
Since the movie will take place in the Pre-Flood World, models were also sought out that attempt to describe the physical characteristics of this pre-Flood world.
Note: The Vapor Canopy Model was at one time also viewed as a Flood model. Yet the majority of Christians who are scientists today no longer view the Vapor Canopy Model as a viable Flood model. This opinion changed over time through the scientific peer review process.
(There was some discussion of the vapor canopy "model".)
At the end the moderator's conclusion is:
quote:I first want to thank all the Authors and Panelists for their hard work and dedication displayed throughout our Flood Science Review. Many have said to me, what has been accomplished throughout our Flood Science Review. Many have said to me, what has been accomplished through this Review has been historic for the Creation Movement. In Jesus’ Name Productions considers it a privilege to have hosted this Review, and we thank God for any progress that has been made.
As I stated in our Introduction (Intro-Objective):
We believe a blockbuster level movie about the Biblical Flood has enormous potential. We believe The Flood movie could have historic impact throughout the world, if the science upon which it is based could be sufficiently defended. It could even represent a significant challenge to the validity of the theory of Evolution, and the history of mankind and our planet. The critical question at this point is: Did any of our Flood models meet the objective of this Review as stated in our Introduction? The answer, according to our Panel’s Conclusions is: No, not at this time.
In Jesus’ Name Productions understood before this Review began, this could be the conclusion of our Panel. Conducting this Review for the past 2 years has been challenging and expensive (i.e., close to $50,000). Yet we are very encouraged, because we believe significant progress has been made, and while our goal has not yet been reached, a path towards it can now more clearly be set.
Hence, In Jesus’ Name Productions remains 100% committed to making The Flood movie once the Creation Community has a Flood model that is complete and ready to be defended before a secular audience. In the meantime, In Jesus’ Name Productions plans to continue to work with the Creation Community, including helping to raise or provide funds for research, until we all have a Flood model that is ready to take on and overturn the secular view of Earth’s history.
Let me repeat:
The critical question at this point is: Did any of our Flood models meet the objective of this Review as stated in our Introduction? The answer, according to our Panel’s Conclusions is: No, not at this time.
In your eyes the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and the cataphract-armored intermediates may be satisfactory intermediates. But to supply evidence for your theory you would need fossils that more closely match each of those organisms that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. That is one of the areas where evolutionary theory fails completely.
I can make no sense out of this post.
Easy-peasy. It's Behe at Dover all over again. Without a complete record of all intermediates, we go nuthin'. Standard creationist ploy.
He thinks of transgression/recession cycles as happening over sufficiently short time as to be remembered in human/societal memory. They would stay up in the mountains because they knew it was fruitless to build where the sea would just take it.
"O, wise and ancient elder, tell us the story of how close the seashore was when you were young!"
The fact is, evolutionists have used the same term. It's hair-splitting also, the point is "hydrological" is a perfectly usable term, I see no reason to use it as a lame attempt at a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy.
Creationists use the term in an attempt to describe an alleged real event. Evolutionists use the term to refer to the creationist's failed attempt to explain the order of the fossil record. We do NOT use the term to describe reality 4,500-odd years ago.