Even layers in the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon's sedimentary rock layers are horizontal and even, if there were to be millions of years the layers would not be even because after

a layer is layed down, it starts eroding, which does not leave a horizontal surface. So there is a problem with millions of years because the layers are horizontal and a catastrophic flood fits perfectly into the Grand Canyon because layers rapidly layed down would leave a horizontal layers! So the biblical flood must be true.

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 4121

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Arlene said

"If this has nothing to do with science, why use scientific arguments at all?"

 

YES!  Absolutely!

You will notice that I never use scientific arguments to prove the philosophies of  Creationism true or Naturalism false.  It is illogical to try to use science to prove true the source of assumptions that science is based on.  This would be circular logic.  Unfortunately many Creationists attempt to do so.  But then, they do so because they have watched Naturists do it for a long time.  In fact, the lead article in this discussion is a glaring example what NOT to do.  You cannot use scientific evidence to prove the Bible, BECAUSE that evidence is first interpreted by the Biblical paradigm into a flood model. 

What we do as creationists is interpret the evidence within the Biblical paradigm including flood catastrophism. This is not to prove the flood.  rather we already know that the Flood happened and so see the evidence in that light.

The interpretations of such groups as the ASA ignore what the Bible says for itself and interpret the Bible in terms of Naturalism (ontological or methodological).  So, the Bible is made subject to atheistic philosophy.  For creationists. that is anathema.  The Bible is the foundation for our understanding and interpretation of nature, not some atheistic philosophy.

Arlene said:  "That is what Glenn Morton did when he compared what he actually saw in the geologic record to what he had been taught. He had a thoroughly YEC viewpoint/worldview and went through a crisis of faith in finding it did not fit the real world." 

Glenn Morton is very, very confused.  He is not a geologist.  What he "saw in the geologic record" is the naturalistic interpretation he read in geologic papers, which a prioi rules out a global flood cataclysm.  He was/is incapable of, or is willingly rebellious of, recognizing the difference between interpretation of evidence within atheistic naturalism and the raw evidence itself.  Creationists take the very same raw evidence and interpret it within a Creationary cataclysmic paradigm.  Thus you are faced with two interpretations. It is not science verse religion.  It is between interpretation in two differrent paradigms.   And you choose which one you wish, depending upon which one you put the most faith in.  Glenn has put his faith in atheistic naturalism and has rejected what the Bible says. 

 

Arlene:  "How many other people feel they have no other choice but YEC or atheistic naturalism, when there are other views faithful to the Bible"

John 1:1-14 says that Jesus, The WORD, who is God and is with God, is The Creator by which all things were made.  So.

When we read Genesis 1:3-5 it really says this:

And Jesus said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Jesus saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. Jesus called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Jesus was the Creator for all 7 of the days of creation!

 

And Genesis 6:5-7 really says:

"Jesus saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Jesus regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So Jesus said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Now if you, as a Christian, have accepted the salvation offered by Jesus, God the Word, the Creator, who has never sinned or never lied, by his death and resurrection, how can you consider anything other than what Jesus has said he did?

Are you saying that if Glenn was a geologist, he would have a different view? He was accused by YE creationists of being misled by geologists, and specifically denies it, as he studied physics as a major.  He has “run the numbers” on a variety of YEC arguments, and shows they don’t fit reality.

 

It seems you’re saying that any interpretation of scientific data that doesn’t conform to a young-earth interpretation of the Bible is automatically “atheistic naturalism”?

 

By the way, the ASA does not take an official position on origins issues.

 

I didn't write this, but it is a fair expression of what I believe about creation:

 

"The physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature -- its physical, biological, and social aspects -- can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other."

 

Note the mention of  “two revelations” above (not a new concept but found throughout church history).  They have also been called “general” and “special” revelation, or the “two books” of God’s revelation..  I don’t believe the Bible requires a young-earth interpretation.

Allen Roy said:

Arlene said:  "That is what Glenn Morton did when he compared what he actually saw in the geologic record to what he had been taught. He had a thoroughly YEC viewpoint/worldview and went through a crisis of faith in finding it did not fit the real world." 

Glenn Morton is very, very confused.  He is not a geologist.  What he "saw in the geologic record" is the naturalistic interpretation he read in geologic papers, which a prioi rules out a global flood cataclysm.  He was/is incapable of, or is willingly rebellious of, recognizing the difference between interpretation of evidence within atheistic naturalism and the raw evidence itself.  Creationists take the very same raw evidence and interpret it within a Creationary cataclysmic paradigm.  Thus you are faced with two interpretations. It is not science verse religion.  It is between interpretation in two differrent paradigms.   And you choose which one you wish, depending upon which one you put the most faith in.  Glenn has put his faith in atheistic naturalism and has rejected what the Bible says. 

 

Arlene:  "How many other people feel they have no other choice but YEC or atheistic naturalism, when there are other views faithful to the Bible"

John 1:1-14 says that Jesus, The WORD, who is God and is with God, is The Creator by which all things were made.  So.

When we read Genesis 1:3-5 it really says this:

And Jesus said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Jesus saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. Jesus called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Jesus was the Creator for all 7 of the days of creation!

 

And Genesis 6:5-7 really says:

"Jesus saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Jesus regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So Jesus said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Now if you, as a Christian, have accepted the salvation offered by Jesus, God the Word, the Creator, who has never sinned or never lied, by his death and resurrection, how can you consider anything other than what Jesus has said he did?

I totally agree on that reply.


Jeff Brace said:

 So what are your views? Or is it a secret :)  I am really enjoying this thread but your responses keep binding things up.

Do you have a young earth view of this or not?

Arlene Peterson said:

First of all, I haven’t stated my views on the flood, and do not hold to the views you stated.  My purpose in posting here is to remind people there are alternate Christian views out there and encourage them to investigate for themselves.  That is what Glenn Morton did when he compared what he actually saw in the geologic record to what he had been taught. He had a thoroughly YEC viewpoint/worldview and went through a crisis of faith in finding it did not fit the real world.  How many other people feel they have no other choice but YEC or atheistic naturalism, when there are other views faithful to the Bible? 

 

“The transformation of a young-earth creationist”

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Morton.html

 

I also dispute that the worldview a person has automatically determines how they interpret scientific data, as if they had no choice.  If this has nothing to do with science, why use scientific arguments at all?

Allen Roy said:

Arlene:  There are many thing which critics of the Flood assume which in many cases are inaacurate. 

#1  That all the land was covered all the time all over the world.  This is not necessarily so.  Most Creationary flood models allow for some parts of the new sediments to be exposed occasionally.  Thus foot prints, rain drop prints, mud cracks are entirely possible. 

#2  worm burrows can only be made in a calm sea setting.   but, marine worm burrows are entirely possible, not as evidence of long times, but evidence of quick burial while still alive and the animals burrowing escape routes.

#3 There should be only one kind of layer since everything was all mixed up.  This is because of the model critics THINK creationists should have.  We call this false model, the bathtub model, where you fill up a tub, mix it all up with a paddle and then pull the plug.  Most Flood models include the idea of asteroid impact mega-tsunami and mega-earthquake tsunami.  Each of these tsunami, as it came ashore to shallows would do two things as it passes.  a. rip up upper sediments it rolls over and b. deposit a fresh layer after it passes.  The fresh layer would be made up of what ever it had picked up and then transports across the surface.  One mega-tsunami would come from one direction with a load of mostly sand.  another would come from another direction deposition silt and clay.  Another would bring in lime mud from somewhere else.  So you get a sequence of different layers from the same cataclysm.  In reality, Flood catastrophist envision the Flood being a large sequence of many catastrophic events happening one right after the other.

4: cave and channels in the Redwall limestone.  caves are formed by water running through limestone.  After the Redwall lime muds were catastrophically deposited by a mega-tsunami, they were able to harden to near 80% within just a month due strictly to chemical reactions very similar to that which happens to portland cement (not exactly, but similar).  During that hardening time as flood waters moved and drained across the submerged surface of the redwall deposit, erosion channels (now erroneously identified as river channels) could form.  After the silty clay layers above were deposited, water from that layer, having a different pH level would move down into the limestone and dissolve underwater caves in it and could even cause topology this is erroneously call Karst, on the surface.  

You also need to realize that most of these objections have been posed by Morton, who was a YEC but gave it up and has become its enemy.  He was not a geologist and is not a geologist and does not have a proper geology education.  What he did was to assume that the interpretations given by "real" geologists MUST be correct.  He has failed to realize that interpretation of geology depends upon the assumptions you start with.  Most naturalistic geologists automatically exclude any possible interpretation of geology that is catastrophic.  On the other hand we creationary flood geologists start with assumptions that the flood is true and that catastrophic interpretations are to be used and expected.  ( I have personally argued with Morton for several years)  All of the supposed objections which you are posting are due to choosing to interpret data within atheistic naturalism or within creationary flood catastrophism.  All data is interpreted within a world view paradigm. 

 

You can keep posting all the objections you can find, but it will never cause anyone here to change their mind.  This is because the objections arise due to differences in world view and nothing at all to do with science.  Do creationary flood catastrophists have answers to every bit of data that exists. no.  but neither do the naturalists. 

Arlene quoted:  ""The physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature -- its physical, biological, and social aspects -- can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other."

 

There is a MAJOR problem with is seemingly pious statement.  What Hugh Ross is trying to say is that since God caused the Bible to be written and caused the natural world to come into existance, then we should see agreement between them.  Most YECs and the like would agree, BUT the problem is that Ross (and many others) try to meld science as interpreted by atheistic naturalism with the Biblical story.  This is impossible to do.  And what Ross and others end up doing is accepting typical atheistic interpretation of the natural world over and above the Biblical explanation of the natural world.  They have fallen for the lie that Science is an independent, unbiased, fully trustworthy means of truth.  They simply do not understand or stubbornly refuse to accept (especially since it is unenlightened, fundamentalist YECs that are telling them so) that all science is interpreted within a paradigm.  It's information is biased by the paradigm it is done within.

By "properly understood" Ross means to reinterpret the Bible within the understanding of nature as interpreted by science (which is interpreted within atheistic naturalism)

The only safe way to understand the God's book of nature is to interpret science within the revealed paradigm of Biblical creationism. That is the ONLY way that God's two books--the Bible and Nature--will ever harmonize.  You cannot  blend atheism and Christianity, yet millions of Christians are taught to try to do so..


In the state of Colorado around the Denver area, there is the ubiquitous Sawach Cambrian sandstone layer dated using absolute methods at 500ma. The sandstone is supposedly the result of a huge inland ocean that essentially covered most of contiguous United States.

 

The sandstone was initially deposited on the Pikes Peak granite that formed much earlier. During the Laramide orogeny, the Pikes Peak granite cracked and split initiating the first phase of mountain building in the area. The Laramide orogeny (the lifting up of the Rockies) is dated at 70ma.

 

During this event, the sawach sandstone completely liquefied and was promptly injected down into the granite to depths of over a kilometer with injectite widths being as great as 300 meters.

The problem is a time problem. Since solid sandstone cannot undergo liquefaction (a process that can only occur to wet sand), the sand must have been very moist at the time of the injection event. This however, means that the sand must have remained wet and pliable for 430 million years?

The alternative, but not accepted explanation has the deposition of the sandstone and the injection event occurring at more or less the same time (in a flood model). Yet this means the 430 million year time span is not real, only perceived.

 

This information was presented on a Geological Society of America field trip last year in October. That’s right, a bunch of PhD creationist geologists led a field trip for the premier, annual secular geology meeting. I was there on that trip, along with 16 other secular geologists (some from anti-creationist movements such as Genie Scott’s organization were also present), and it was like music to my ears to have 16 PhD geologists stumped.

 

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2010AM/finalprogram/session_25804.htm


Caleb D. Swanson said:

I totally agree on that reply.


Jeff Brace said:

 So what are your views? Or is it a secret :)  I am really enjoying this thread but your responses keep binding things up.

Do you have a young earth view of this or not?

Arlene Peterson said:

First of all, I haven’t stated my views on the flood, and do not hold to the views you stated.  My purpose in posting here is to remind people there are alternate Christian views out there and encourage them to investigate for themselves.  That is what Glenn Morton did when he compared what he actually saw in the geologic record to what he had been taught. He had a thoroughly YEC viewpoint/worldview and went through a crisis of faith in finding it did not fit the real world.  How many other people feel they have no other choice but YEC or atheistic naturalism, when there are other views faithful to the Bible? 

 

“The transformation of a young-earth creationist”

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Morton.html

 

I also dispute that the worldview a person has automatically determines how they interpret scientific data, as if they had no choice.  If this has nothing to do with science, why use scientific arguments at all?

Allen Roy said:

Arlene:  There are many thing which critics of the Flood assume which in many cases are inaacurate. 

#1  That all the land was covered all the time all over the world.  This is not necessarily so.  Most Creationary flood models allow for some parts of the new sediments to be exposed occasionally.  Thus foot prints, rain drop prints, mud cracks are entirely possible. 

#2  worm burrows can only be made in a calm sea setting.   but, marine worm burrows are entirely possible, not as evidence of long times, but evidence of quick burial while still alive and the animals burrowing escape routes.

#3 There should be only one kind of layer since everything was all mixed up.  This is because of the model critics THINK creationists should have.  We call this false model, the bathtub model, where you fill up a tub, mix it all up with a paddle and then pull the plug.  Most Flood models include the idea of asteroid impact mega-tsunami and mega-earthquake tsunami.  Each of these tsunami, as it came ashore to shallows would do two things as it passes.  a. rip up upper sediments it rolls over and b. deposit a fresh layer after it passes.  The fresh layer would be made up of what ever it had picked up and then transports across the surface.  One mega-tsunami would come from one direction with a load of mostly sand.  another would come from another direction deposition silt and clay.  Another would bring in lime mud from somewhere else.  So you get a sequence of different layers from the same cataclysm.  In reality, Flood catastrophist envision the Flood being a large sequence of many catastrophic events happening one right after the other.

4: cave and channels in the Redwall limestone.  caves are formed by water running through limestone.  After the Redwall lime muds were catastrophically deposited by a mega-tsunami, they were able to harden to near 80% within just a month due strictly to chemical reactions very similar to that which happens to portland cement (not exactly, but similar).  During that hardening time as flood waters moved and drained across the submerged surface of the redwall deposit, erosion channels (now erroneously identified as river channels) could form.  After the silty clay layers above were deposited, water from that layer, having a different pH level would move down into the limestone and dissolve underwater caves in it and could even cause topology this is erroneously call Karst, on the surface.  

You also need to realize that most of these objections have been posed by Morton, who was a YEC but gave it up and has become its enemy.  He was not a geologist and is not a geologist and does not have a proper geology education.  What he did was to assume that the interpretations given by "real" geologists MUST be correct.  He has failed to realize that interpretation of geology depends upon the assumptions you start with.  Most naturalistic geologists automatically exclude any possible interpretation of geology that is catastrophic.  On the other hand we creationary flood geologists start with assumptions that the flood is true and that catastrophic interpretations are to be used and expected.  ( I have personally argued with Morton for several years)  All of the supposed objections which you are posting are due to choosing to interpret data within atheistic naturalism or within creationary flood catastrophism.  All data is interpreted within a world view paradigm. 

 

You can keep posting all the objections you can find, but it will never cause anyone here to change their mind.  This is because the objections arise due to differences in world view and nothing at all to do with science.  Do creationary flood catastrophists have answers to every bit of data that exists. no.  but neither do the naturalists. 

Arlene, one of the major problems old earthers have is an incorrect view of what a global flood might look like. An aspect that should be taken into consideration is that this flood lasted over a year, plate movements, tides and other catastrophic events allow for water levels and sedimentation processes to vary quite considerabley.

 

What would temporally emerged land surfaces, for example, look like? If the surface emerged for short periods of time, then one would expect to find extremely wet, boggy environments. If the surface emerged for long periods of time, perhaps weeks or months (yes, this is a yearlong event!), then the surface would be relatively dry. Dinos dyeing in mud, an argument used against a global  flood model, makes perfect sense on temporally emerged continents that were composed of many different sediment types.  

 

This kind of oscillating water depth would provide a multitude of watery environments from a serine mud plain (while fully emerged) to a river delta (when partly submerged) to a raging flood (when fully submerged). You should find dinosaurs buried in all kinds of “watery” events, as well as dino footprints and nests.

 

Most naturalists have their “flood” glasses on when trying to critique the YEC model. They don’t pay attention to the eclectic nature of a worldwide flood with temporally submerged and emerged land surfaces, tides, tectonic and volcanic activity, turbidities, gravity slides, subducting plates, times of complete serenity  etc. This event lasted over a year.

Other data that support this:

 

What about the perennial desert environments that always seem to characterize dinosaur habitats? When we watch a documentary about dinosaurs, they are always depicted as living in lush jungles or forests. The evidence, however, reveals that dinosaurs are always found in “deserts” or areas which completely lack vegetation? Why is that?

Here’s an example of what I mean:

 

“Although Seitaad [a recent dinosaur find] was preserved in a sand dune, this ancient desert must have included wetter areas with enough plants to support these smaller dinosaurs and other animals," said Sertich. "Just like in deserts today, life would have been difficult in Utah's ancient 'sand sea. The scientists say seasonal rainstorms akin to today's summer monsoons could have done the trick, filling ponds and other low spots between the sand dunes.”

http://www.livescience.com/animals/dinosaur-buried-alive-100323.html

 

 

A better interpretation that fits the data is that this dinosaur was buried by marine, sand sedimentation processes, such as those outlined above. When these fossils are unearthed, it is up to the “interpreter” to decide whether these sand deposits were made in a desert or under water.

 

 

What about marine deposits mixed with dino bones? Here is a quote that tries to explain away this ‘data’ by simply brushing it under the rug: “suggesting that these ocean creatures could once survive without saltwater.”!!!!!

 “Currently, Hell Creek Formation is one of the premier excavation sites for the introduction of dinosaur fossils into the commercial market. The area is known for its dinosaur teeth and fragments of an ancient reptile called the crocodilian osteoderm.

Other notable fossils include the lasting presence of various invertebrates (prehistoric animals with no spinal column), plants, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians.

Fun Fact : Despite its existence as a freshwater habitat, shark and ray teeth have been found in the area around Hell Creek Formation, suggesting that these ocean creatures could once survive without saltwater.” http://www.guidetomontana.com/montana-tourism/hell-creek-formation....

 

When we find saltwater marine fossils ‘without’ dinosaur fossils we automatically assume it was a marine environment. Do you see the assumptions that are built into the “interpretations?”

 

Fish and shark fossils with dinosaur fossils. This is solid data that supports the YEC hypothesis.

 

We can trust the bible Arlene and its clear testimony of a global flood.



Arlene Peterson said:

Some things that don't seem to fit with a flood geology origin of the Grand Canyon (i.e. things that take time to develop):

-river channels and caves eroded into the top of the Redwall limestone

-fossils of raindrop prints, ripple marks, mud cracks, burrows of marine worms

-different types of layers that are formed in different depositional environments, including ocean, freshwater, and desert conditions

Perhaps you're a bit overstating things?  Not all scientists are atheists, not all scientists are naturalists, some are Christians, some are creationist, of whatever stripe.  Are there really only 2 options - ignoring the science data (creationism) or ignoring the supernatural (naturalism)?  And who is saying science is always "independent, unbiased, fully trustworthy means of truth"?  Neither is biblical hermeneutics, else there wouldn't be so many denominations that differ on their interpretations.  Both areas require work to understand what is truth (reality) and how they fit together.  You're setting up an epistemological paradigm and declaring that anyone who doesn't fit it is wrong. In addition, isn't it just a little presumptuous to state you know how someone else is thinking, when they say the opposite?  I expected the discussion would end up here.  I don't care to say any more on the subject.

Allen Roy said:

Arlene quoted:  ""The physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature -- its physical, biological, and social aspects -- can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other."

 

There is a MAJOR problem with is seemingly pious statement.  What Hugh Ross is trying to say is that since God caused the Bible to be written and caused the natural world to come into existance, then we should see agreement between them.  Most YECs and the like would agree, BUT the problem is that Ross (and many others) try to meld science as interpreted by atheistic naturalism with the Biblical story.  This is impossible to do.  And what Ross and others end up doing is accepting typical atheistic interpretation of the natural world over and above the Biblical explanation of the natural world.  They have fallen for the lie that Science is an independent, unbiased, fully trustworthy means of truth.  They simply do not understand or stubbornly refuse to accept (especially since it is unenlightened, fundamentalist YECs that are telling them so) that all science is interpreted within a paradigm.  It's information is biased by the paradigm it is done within.

By "properly understood" Ross means to reinterpret the Bible within the understanding of nature as interpreted by science (which is interpreted within atheistic naturalism)

The only safe way to understand the God's book of nature is to interpret science within the revealed paradigm of Biblical creationism. That is the ONLY way that God's two books--the Bible and Nature--will ever harmonize.  You cannot  blend atheism and Christianity, yet millions of Christians are taught to try to do so..

This YEC starts from biblical presumptions and then is confident investigation of earth backs up Genesis and never backs up criticisms of Genesis.

It is mostly about practical evidence. i say even without Genesis most conclusions, like the flood, biology,  would be drawn eventually by sincere researchers of any stamp.

Evidence is evidence.

To repeat. I like the idea of raindrops being fossilized. it makes the creationist case for the flood. Yet I have read it was a error. The raindrop impressions were just this or that thing being splattered. its unlikely any raindrops were frozen in time.

Again different flow events can explain all strata. If there is a claim of sand between stratas remember what sand is and where it comes from. its just dirt broken up. So sand can be deposited after its instant creation and stored with all water drained away.

its not from deserts. Deserts are just also broken sediment in modern processes.

 

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am quite familiar with the global flood model, and the standard geologic model as well. I just don't believe the Bible requires a young earth or a global flood.  From the GeoChristian blog:

http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/why-cant-i-just-believ...

 

Ken Patrick said:

Arlene, one of the major problems old earthers have is an incorrect view of what a global flood might look like. An aspect that should be taken into consideration is that this flood lasted over a year, plate movements, tides and other catastrophic events allow for water levels and sedimentation processes to vary quite considerabley.

 

What would temporally emerged land surfaces, for example, look like? If the surface emerged for short periods of time, then one would expect to find extremely wet, boggy environments. If the surface emerged for long periods of time, perhaps weeks or months (yes, this is a yearlong event!), then the surface would be relatively dry. Dinos dyeing in mud, an argument used against a global  flood model, makes perfect sense on temporally emerged continents that were composed of many different sediment types.  

 

Arlene, I have two questions for you: 1. Regarding my Colorado sand injectite observations, are you able to provide an answer as to why sand would stay wet for 430 million years? And 2. How does the ark end up on Mt Araratt in a local flood?

Arlene Peterson said:

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am quite familiar with the global flood model, and the standard geologic model as well. I just don't believe the Bible requires a young earth or a global flood.  From the GeoChristian blog:

http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/why-cant-i-just-believ...

 

Ken Patrick said:

Arlene, one of the major problems old earthers have is an incorrect view of what a global flood might look like. An aspect that should be taken into consideration is that this flood lasted over a year, plate movements, tides and other catastrophic events allow for water levels and sedimentation processes to vary quite considerabley.

 

What would temporally emerged land surfaces, for example, look like? If the surface emerged for short periods of time, then one would expect to find extremely wet, boggy environments. If the surface emerged for long periods of time, perhaps weeks or months (yes, this is a yearlong event!), then the surface would be relatively dry. Dinos dyeing in mud, an argument used against a global  flood model, makes perfect sense on temporally emerged continents that were composed of many different sediment types.  

 

Arlene, I went to the website you listed. Here is a quote:


"They rose greatly on the land, and all the high hills under the entire sky were covered. The waters rose more than twenty feet, and the hills were covered."

 

Do you notice how incredibly silly this passage now looks after their "interpretation?" The waters rose 20 feet and covered all the hills under the entire sky? 20 feet? This is the silly kind of biblical gymnastics that old earthers will go to to try and push their old earth theory.

 


Ken Patrick said:

Arlene, I have two questions for you: 1. Regarding my Colorado sand injectite observations, are you able to provide an answer as to why sand would stay wet for 430 million years? And 2. How does the ark end up on Mt Araratt in a local flood?

Arlene Peterson said:

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am quite familiar with the global flood model, and the standard geologic model as well. I just don't believe the Bible requires a young earth or a global flood.  From the GeoChristian blog:

http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/why-cant-i-just-believ...

 

Ken Patrick said:

Arlene, one of the major problems old earthers have is an incorrect view of what a global flood might look like. An aspect that should be taken into consideration is that this flood lasted over a year, plate movements, tides and other catastrophic events allow for water levels and sedimentation processes to vary quite considerabley.

 

What would temporally emerged land surfaces, for example, look like? If the surface emerged for short periods of time, then one would expect to find extremely wet, boggy environments. If the surface emerged for long periods of time, perhaps weeks or months (yes, this is a yearlong event!), then the surface would be relatively dry. Dinos dyeing in mud, an argument used against a global  flood model, makes perfect sense on temporally emerged continents that were composed of many different sediment types.  

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service