wj
TB, how can you sit there and write that stuff with a straight face? You postulate scenarios which have been debunked time and time again.
Using your approach you could debunk any new emerging theory of science, some of which turn out to be correct. New approaches always have holes. The creationist scenario has more parsimonous aspects than holes IMO.
Accelerated radioactive decay? Enough heat to drive runaway subduction and boil all of the oceans dry. But you conveniently omit this little detail in your storytelling, despite the fact that it has been presented to you repeatedly.
In an introductory 3 paragraph summary I felt quite justified in presenting the positive aspects of the scenario. Three or four potential solutions to the excess heat problem have been proposed by the RATE group and others:
1. Superheated jets of steam at underwater rift valleys traversing the globe transported water (and heat) to escape velocity. Comets (mostly ice) may represent this catastrophic event.
2. The expansion of the universe may still have been proceeding at a rapid pace during the time of the flood (using the Humphreys cosmology) and the heat was absorbed by spatial expansion (see the RATE book for calcs).
3. Accelerated radiodecay, continental drift, and flood associated events occurred gradually over hundreds of years pre- and post- the primary flood event and people survived in regions of low radioisotope abundance. This is my wacky theory which may or may not be easily debunked.
And if your fantasised accelerated radioactive decay made some rocks appear to be 4 billion years old, why don't all rocks appear this age?
That's easily explained and emerges natrually from the sceanrio for exactly the same reasons that all rocks on Earth aren't 4.5 billion years old in the mainstream scenario. Rocks are time-reset by liquificaiton and the clock starts from the time of solidificaiton. Hence rocks that became solidified half way through the flood record display half of the decay that rocks solidified at the beginning of the flood display. Precisely how the mainstream scheme works.
Out of curiousity, how does your flood fantasy cope with the Great Dividing Range in Australia? There isn't enough ice to melt and cover them. They are not associated with any active tectonic plate collisions. So, how were they covered and subsequently uplifted?
I'd have to do some research to discover when the uplift occurred mainstream. Whatever the case the GD range got uplifted at some point during the history of this planet! Our scenario probably puts a constraint of post-Cretacous. I'll check it out. Regardless of the mechanims of uplift, if the rocks record the uplift occurred post-Cretacous there is no problem. (I'm assuming here that the 100% coverage occured at the Cretacous). From my mainstream reading I see mto recall that most mountain ranges only survive for about 100 million years so I have presumed that most of our current mountain ranges are younger than 100 million years mainstream (not far off from the KT boundary age of 66 My).
In your answer, please also maintain consistency with the postflood migration of the 18 pairs of marsupial and monotreme ancestors directly to Australasia without leaving any evidence of their journey from the middle east.
We agree with the mainstream expectation that there would be almost no fossiliztion on land during (let's be generous) the 1000 years it took them to get to Australia.
™ Version 4.2