Original Intent Of the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ PU, all non-naive models of the flood involve tectonic action as an instigator of the inundation of the continents with water from the oceans (we suspect the rain was condensing steam boiled t tectonic boundaries) as well as continental drift. Hence we're talking a lot of crustal movement up/down/horizontally. So we expect surges. The flood itself ocurred over 400 days (only the rain was for 40 days) and we wouldsuspect that retreat of waters took decades and that the current continental drift is an exponentially falling remnant of the initial catastrophically rapid drift.

​

So we can easily accomodate temporary resettling on recently created flood plains for days to weeks.

​

---

JM: But of course, you evade the question of what defines pre, syn and post flood.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I am collecting stuff on it Joe. I've now realized that my main souce on this is a CEN Tech artilce I have to search the house for! But I'll compare/contrast this with the web too.

---

JM: Well, let me give you a heads up. TC has claimed that the flood took place and is recorded in Cambrian through Tertiary deposits. That would make precambrian strata 'pre-flood'. This (cambrian-tertiary) is an interesting period of time since we have very clear evidence for terrestrial desert deposits during this interval. If we assume this time line then we also have evidence that (a) dinosaurs were one of Gods chosen creatures (like Noah) since they were able to escape the flood waters in Utah. We also know that magnetic reversals happened prior to and following the flood deposits (and there are MANY reversals). We also have a lack of 'forests' in precambrian strata (heck even Cambrian and younger) that will serve as a source for all the vegetation mats and polystrate fossils that you so dearly love to discuss. So, if the Cambrian marks the onset of the flood, then where is all the precambrian evidence for the trees that would be washed away in the Cambrian?
how about the following exercise? Use the stratigraphic record (Cambrian-Tertiary) along the Atlantic margin and explain its formation (in detail) using the global flood model. IF you disagree with these time constraints for the flood, then explain the portions which you attribute to pre, syn and post flood events.CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]You really need to have this discussion with an actual creationist geologist but here we go . . . [/QUOTE]JM: is there such a being?

quote:

---

I don't have problems with dinosaur kinds (there are about 30 Linnean familes as a guide I think) on the ark. Neiher do I have a problem about dinosaurs who missed out creating footprints etc in between surges. Perhaps I missed your dinosaur point.

---

JM:It's not that they missed out, it's a question of how they survived the flood. If they were in the ark, then they certainly made it to Utah in a hurry! Remember, we are talking about Cretaceous terrestrial deposits.. The only marine deposition in the area is below the footprints.

quote:

---

I don't have problems with accelerated radioisotopic decay, radiogenic heating, sea floor spreading and magentic reversals occuring as a build up to the flood and during the following years.

---

JM: Nor do you have any evidence for any of these things. I guess this is an excellent example of the adage "Ignorance is bliss"?

quote:

---

We don't claim to know the profile of accelerated decay although we may ultimately be able to estimate it.

---

JM: You don't even have evidence that it happened nor do you have a mechanism for it to happen!

quote:

---

We're not talking some pedestrian event here - we're talking about kilometres of water and constant flows (as the paleocurrents document).

---

JM: Which you misinterpreted! How do fragile things like bee hives, temrite mounds and crayfish burrows survive this 'non pedestrian' event? Where is the evidence for this flood?

quote:

---

I would not at all expect any remnant of the pre-flood biotic world to be in its original position.

---

JM: But quite clearly some of it is. For example, were stromatolites placed in bunches by the flood? Termite mounds? Bee hives? crayfish burrows?

quote:

---

The basement rocks obviously would remain and in some places we would get marine sediments on top of basement rocks and in other places terrestial sediments (as observed). But that's where I have to leave it to detailed creationist studies.

---

JM: THERE ARE NONE! No creationist HAS ever detailed the flood sequence. This is what I am trying to beat you over the head with. What rocks mark the onset, middle and end of the Noachian flood? Surely, something of this magnitude can be clearly described.

quote:

---

Let's not forget that, even in the beautifully recorded Grand Canyon strata, there are missing 50 million years of strata which stretch credibility given the flat paraconformities.

---

JM: Have YOU looked at the Grand Canyon sequence boundaries in detail? There are deep channels carved into the top of the Mauv.

quote:

---

To say that these flat, hardly eroded unconformities (defn: interfaces between seperate beds with a break in deposition) document tens of millions of years of erosion is quite bizaree.

---

JM: Have you looked at them in detail. Your image sounds rather cartoonish.

quote:

---

In our model we expect to get such 'missing time' because sometimes we will get terrestial beds on pre-flood bed rock and sometimes marine beds.

---

JM: Why? In fact, if the global flood covered the globe, you should be able to point to a sequence of globally correlated SOLELY marine strata.

quote:

---

For any more detail you need to get Baumgardner et al here although I am continually reading more and more of their stuff.

---

JM: Baumgardner is NOT a geologist nor has he written anything in the mainstream literature regarding the stratigraphic partioning of time in flood deposits. Interestingly, many of his mainstream papers are old earth (weird considering his public stance against old earth). Would YOU co-author a paper where the conclusions were so diametrically opposed to your real views?

quote:

---

By the way, I'm quite happy to keep discussing our problems, but do you know I haven't been able find a book yet or good web link on the corresponding details of how the GC came to be from your point of view? Lots of talk of fluvial, eolian, deltaic etc but not much on, now here's hw we go the Devonian etc . . . Can you help with a findable ref or link? I can categroically state that the three books I read on 'Origin of Sedimentary Rocks' hardly covered this issue. I was coming to the conclusion that there is no semi-deterministic mainstream detailed model for how the GC came to be but I'm sure you'll come to my rescue.

---

JM: For a "Phded" scientist, you sure have difficulty with literature searches!CheersJoe Meert

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Joe, in answer to your points:We propose that dinosaur footprints got there after a floodsurge and before the one that killed them.[/QUOTE]JM: Does not work, sorry. The geology does not fit your story. Who is this 'we' you keep talking about? Do you know the sections I am speaking of? Can you show me where creationists have published field observations to support your scenario? If not, then it is nothing more than fanciful thinking.

quote:

---

We do have evidence for accelerated radioactive decay. It's published in the RATE book and they have since done the helium difusion measurement. There is far too much helium in granties and too little in the air.

---

JM: There is no evidence for accelerated decay in the RATE book. There is some conjecture about what 'mighta been', but no experimental verification. I've also asked you this before. Surely a 'Phded' physicist understands a little about the physics of helium in the atmosphere? By the way, how much is too much? Why do you think it is too much?

quote:

---

Beehives etc could have temporarily resettled in between flood surges that might have been days to weeks apart. Presumably some fossilised nabitats are preflood environments. II'll partially back down on that point and allow for a spectrum of possibilities here - in any location the catstrophism of the flood would have been modulated by the local topography.

---

JM: Yes, but isn't the simplest explanation that they fossilized in place and no flood occurred. The more you try to explain, the more twisted the explanations become and the less consistent they become. On the one hand, you present Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics as an explanation for the flood. The flood is said to 'rip' trees roots out and Baumgardner's scenario is even more chaotic. Through all this chaos heat and death, you propose that beehive, crayfish burrows and termite mounds survive without much damage. Footprints are preserved in the same flood that is 'washing soil' (your words, not mine) hither and yon to produce the appearance of rooted trees. Dinosaur bones found intact are explained by the flood because they were killed and then floated away to be hydrodynamically sorted...with the exception of those that decayed and were disarticulated during a 'massive flood' that washed all the bones into a scrap pile. In the meantime, magnetic fields are reversing back and forth and then magically stopped-- despite the fact that the Tertiary shows many reversals and is supposed by some to be post flood. Further, the Precambrian strata shows evidence of reversals and these are supposed to be pre-flood. The paleocurrents are constant (except that they vary) and are supposed to reflect a single giant pulse of water (that ripped out all the forests) that also magically preserved bee hives, termite nests and dinosaur nests. I'll stop, but perhaps you can sense my cynicism for your 'model'. In trying to fit all geology into a single flood, you merely create more problems.

quote:

---

There are increasingly quantitaitve creaitonist models. I know of tectonic modles, paelocurrent models and hydrodynamic sorting models. I'll link them soon.

---

JM: Might as well, the physical evidence does not work so computer simulation might hold your only hope. Computers gave us Jurassic park, perhaps they can give you Noah's flood.

quote:

---

Your deep channels in the Mauv. You still think this is all you would get after tens of millions of years? These interfaces are flat for miles. I've haven't done a field trip so I 'll let you have the last say. Isn't there mainstream material talking about the lack of genuine unconformities?

---

JM: Yes, this might be some of the evidence for an erosional hiatus. Why? What is a 'genuine unconformity'? Perhaps when you explain that term, I can answer your questions

quote:

---

We don't get absolutely globally correlated strata in our modle because there are still lcoal effects - ecological, tectonic, morphological.

---

JM: Baloney. You don't get global correlation because there was no flood!

quote:

---

I've authored papers with evoltuonary ideas in them by co-authors.

---

JM: Then you are a hypocrite if you don't believe it and choose to co-author anyway.

quote:

---

To not do so would be professional suicide.

---

JM: So, according to Christian principles, you'll lie to make a buck. I am sure that ICR would hire old John B. if he just quit. Sorry, as a professional scientist I find that type of behavior unprofessional and frankly, disingenuous.

quote:

---

I lecture on evoltuonary stuff. I think I'm quite fair about it and I talk about 'evolutionary/taxonomic relatedness' which I'm sure puzzles some of the students.

---

JM: When I lecture on young earth creationism I explain that it is without scientific merit. When I publish papers, I either agree with my co-authors on the major points or I do not put my name on the document. That sort of scientific integrity seems to be absent in the creationist side.

quote:

---

Well Joe, our (life sciences) department doesn't have access to GEOREF but I'll wander over to the geology library and check out GEOREF when I need to from now on. Medline was made free to the world by Clinton a few years ago and it covers medical, biological and a lot of chemical journals so that's why it's more well known. I'll take a survey at our departmental coffee table and see howmany of our academics know what the geolgoical lit searching tool is called!

---

JM: It's not necessary to know what it is called, it takes two minutes to ask your librarian. Most scholars know how to use a library!

quote:

---

Please give me some refs to 'origin of the geological column' type books/reviews from the mainstream point of view. I am genuinely interested and I have spent literally hours in the geology library wading through books and review papers. I can't find stuff on this.

---

JM: Impossible! I simply don't believe you've spend HOURS and have not been able to find a discussion on the origin of the geologic column (reminds me of conversations with freshman when they don't turn their papers in on time). This discussion is found in just about every freshman level text on historical geology. Once you get the basics, go to the end of the chapters. Usually you'll find 'extra readings' referenced in the textbooks that will help you with your research. Please, I don't want to offend you, but these types of questions and assertions make you look something less than what you have claimed to be.

quote:

---

There truly appears to be no mainstream deterministic model for this other than making some analogy with modern day environments. This invariably ignores the generation of the vast beds that characterise the actual GC and instead concentrates how features wer gradually carved out and generated new sediments.

---

JM: Then you're not looking hard enough! Try Krumbein and Sloss' text. It's old, but it contains some useful explanations and discussions. I don't mind doing literature searches for those with no training, but you should be skilled at these things.CheersJoe Meert<

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I honestly did find books and thought - now I'll get to the bottom of this. And let down after let down - most of these - all so far - and I've perused probably 50 'origin of sedimentology books' - do not systematically study the origin of the GC. Thanks for the ref tip.

---

JM: Sorry, I am not sure that K&S discusses the GC. You may want to start with "Roadside Geology of Arizona" and follow that with the Geologic History of Utah. Both discuss the GC strata in detail, one is more general than the other. You may also look at "Geology of National Parks textbooks. These are 3 off the top of my head and I am sure there is a Geology of the Grand canyon book out there somewhere.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
A kind to me (a YEC) is a genomically distinct organism related via microevoltuion within and macroevolution/creation to other kinds. A recent creationist conference came to the consensus that a kind is approximately a Linnean family (ie just above genus and species) but this is a generalisation. So eg, this means that horse/zebras/mules are a kind for example (I think). Biology and genomics is currently consistent with this idea. When more genomes are in this will clarify the issue. At the moment science is consistent with a world of several thousand distinct genomes.

---

Yeah, here's a repeat showing how incredibly flexible kind is. So flexible that it includes bacteria to man:I don't know if everyone saw this on another thread. At first, I thought it was a joke by CobraSnake. Then I read more of his/her posts and realized he/she is a creationist. I asked a creationist to define the barrier for evolution (i.e. what limits 'micro' evolution from 'macro'). Here is the response (I still don't know if this is a serious response or a joke):quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In other words, according to creationists a bacteria may, or may not be descended from the same original created kind. I can't tell you how many creationists have lamented that evolution is a 'bacteria to man' myth. When pressed for the limits on what evolution can accomplish, they reach the same exact conclusion. Is this really the definition creationists are touting as the limits to evolution. I still think someone is yanking my chain.CheersJoe Meert