TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[oxmixmudd]

I think you missed a 'person' divider - you seem to move at this point from Roy's post to my own.

I would like to thank you up front for taking the time to try to address the issues raised in a calm and thoughtful manner. We may not agree after all is said and done, but a least it is a discussion and in that the possibility exists for information exchange.

The main issue is that index fossils are determined by what is found and fossils that are found in multiple layers are simply said not to be index fossils. And creationists have pointed to many examples of fossils found in THImultiple layers. So, the index fossil argument amounts to "show me the evidence except whatever evidence you show me" -- an ever-moving goalpost.

Not really. First, approaching if from the side of fossils found in multiple layers is more of a obfuscation of the issue. There are valid and consistent explanations in both a long ages and a flood geology perspective for fossils that occur across a large number of layers. It's not some sort of special pleading case. It just means in the long ages side that these animals had a longer history on the Earth. But from a flood geology perspective it is a genuinely intractable problem to explain the worldwide separation of specific fossils to ONLY certain layers and ONLY certain surrounding groups that cross those same layers.

Even dinosaurs themselves are a sort of 'index' fossil, in that they only occur in sediments older that 65 million years from a long ages perspective. But within those layers ALSO are their own index fossils. So the problem for the flood geology perspective is that the index fossils that help us sort the 200 million years of dinosaur history ONLY lay within the larger swath that defines the dinosaurs themselves. They don't ever creep up into more modern sediments containing more modern animals. This just can't be dealt with in a flood scenario. The flood doesn't sort animals by type - only by buoyancy or location. And the turbid waters of a flood should tend to mix things together. We should not be able to use index fossils at all if a massive flood were the source. Because they would end up showing up basically anywhere in the sequence depending on the local conditions as the flood proceeded.

There's also the "living fossils" missing from layers above where they're found, though the sea examples could only be fossilized on present land when it's underwater in your worldview, so some can be explained.

"Living Fossils" that have some sort of large gap if missing information (that gives rise to the term) tend to be rare and very localized where they are found today. This is not at all outside the scope of what would be expected in the darwinian scenario in term of the potential, in terms of possibility. But it is always newsworthy when we find some obscure pocket where a species thought to be long extinct is found to have actually survivied to the present day. An it would stretch credulity if is was a very common thing. But it isn't.

Thanks for the interesting link. I've gone through the first post at time of writing this. You appear to prove conclusively that it is an asteroid impact, although I wouldn't know for sure about the exact velocities needed. From what you said just in the first post, this would be evidence for the impact initiation version of the Flood, consistent with the evidence for a single system-wide event on other solar bodies (such as perhaps the breaking apart of a planet between Mars and Jupiter orbits also explaining that asteroid belt where the material's direction didn't fall out of orbit enough). And technically it could work for the odd variant that has both events happening at the same time but without natural causal relation. (And I suppose we couldn't rule out a third possibility of some other cause leading to both at the same time, but no idea what that could be.)

I don't think so. The kind of initiation of the flood you are proposing, to leave the evidence we have, would be TOO CATASTROPHIC - by many orders of magnitude. IOW, based on the impacts we know about, Noah and the animals would have needed far more than a wooden ark, and far longer than 1 year to survive. The other issues are things are far to stable in the solar system now for an event like a planet break-up that to have occurred just 4500 years ago. We'd still be getting slammed rather frequently by impacts if that were the case. The very fact the entire topic of asteroid impacts is so new to science is because these things just don't happen very often. The Asteroids themselves form orbital subgroups based on resonances with Jupiter - something that would not be stable just 4500 years following the breakup. I don't have the time to explore all the problems with proposing a planet breakup for a cause of the flood, but there is a reason it's not a popular option. It would not last long.

So in that sense it looks like evidence against any other view of the Flood, but at least from what's in the first post, not evidence against the Flood. Besides, we would want to look for some kind of naturalistic cause for the Flood; the Bible does not clearly state that its cause was miraculous (unlike for example the animal pairs chosen to go on the Ark, or the prophecy of the Flood that lead to the building of the ark) -- at least as one possibility.

Well one critical aspect you are missing is the that aquifers destroyed by the impact in the impact area existed and were/are stable in the layers penetrated out side the area of the impact. Not sure how you are going to set up stable aquifers in flood borne deposition just 4500 years ago.

Pretty sure it has to be in-between, since it's near the coast and yet we still see it. Remember the initial recession stage would cause sheet erosion destroying the topmost deposition (inland too, to an extent, but especially at the coasts). And your diagram showed something atop the crater-affected layers which may include later Flood deposition (unsure offhand).

I'd like to see a self consistent explanation for penetration to the basement rock of LITHIFIED sediment DURING the flood. The asteroid did not punch through mud.

To your list of effects, switching to list style for now:

Tidal waves -- this isn't the only thing that causes those problems, but tidal waves actually tend to be barely noticeable in deep water. It's when they approach land that they become steep.

not THESE tidal waves! In a normal tectonic event producing a tidal wave, the actual movement might be the shift up or down of a column of water a few feet in height - or less. And as this small column of water racers into shallower areas, because it represents the entire length of the water column from the surface to the initiating event, that entire column bunches up as the wave reaches shallow water.

But THIS tidal wave is the result of the displacement and vaporization of cubic MILES of water. The crater diameter is 85 km (revised estimates say 40 as there is some speculation the 85km value represents slumping after the event), ALL the water above it would have been instantly vaporized. The wave itself wold be hundreds of feet tall even out at sea.

From the wikipedia article:

Source: wikipedia

The surrounding region suffered massive devastation. USGS scientist David Powars, one of the impact crater's discoverers, has described the immediate aftermath: "Within minutes, millions of tons of water, sediment, and shattered rock were cast high into the atmosphere for hundreds of miles along the East Coast." An enormous seismic tsunami engulfed the land and possibly even overtopped the Blue Ridge Mountains.[3]

© Copyright Original Source

Of course, I am saying for other reasons Noah was probably inland quite a ways, and if this initiated the Flood, especially with an impact in the single ocean triggering the RS, this could add to the already-expected massive uprushing current -- if this could (I don't know) hit the Ark before it is lifted by gentler water (from both later rainfall and from the pump-action rising slowing down later), then it could possibly damage it enough to make it not possible to survive the year (or just kill from the impact kinetic energy of crashing into hills or whatever).

The description in the account seems to fit both the fountain effects and the floodgate effects happening at roughly the same time from Noah's POV, though that opens up all the previously mentioned issues about POV. But if that's the right interpretation, it would be consistent with his being far enough inland to have the initial waves from both causes not reach him.

Chesapeake Bay 40

Obviously, exact placement of the Ark was always a sticky issue in any version of the global Flood view, even just from pure rainfall versions, since there would have to be a time when it could be mobile sideways and yet isn't high enough up to dodge hills in the area (2012... AHEM). Noah could have mitigated that intentionally (or accidentally on his part but intentionally by God) by building it in a plains area, especially one already near a lake, where he might for example be more likely to find boatbuilders to hire. (I've also argued that he may have built it away from population centers to have more trees right next to the build site... which makes sense if pre-Flood population tended to be hilltop as some post-Flood civilization was as added defense against more dangerous creatures and each other, given the violence described. This also hampers the "visible witness" argument.)

Stress issues -- Well, keep in mind the account confirms that the ark had to deal with these for a time, whatever the causes. The shape has been shown to be ideal for wave stress, and the other effects are known to be mitigated by ancient building techniques.

Climate -- I think the main issues are here, yes. But a lot here depends on the Flood model. Under the RS theory, we already expect a climate issue (matching observations) with the temporarily warmer oceans causing a period of more intense storm activity (we see this from consistent surface erosion of many of what would be islands at the time at the same level below today's ocean surface, as well as various effects on today's continental land and larger islands), and of course the ice age (due to the atmospheric effects of more cloud cover -- note that ice buildup is why the ocean level would be lower for a time causing the island surface erosion).

Look at the list I posted above. ALL of these during the flood year is the only way to explain what they did to the sediments they penetrated The largest ones would have shut down the planet's normal seasons and climate for years, not just 'a year'. That is why one of the major extinctions is associated with Chixulub. But the flood hypothesis REQUIRES they all happened in THAT year. And keep in mind, I'm leaving out several hundred other impacts that made craters at least the size of meteor crater in Arizona. You can put some of them more recent than the flood, but not very many of them. Anything that happened according to long ages dating before 2 million years ago (some what arbitrary pick) MUST be during or before the flood.

The question is if the impacts observed would actually cause effects enough to add to this that would not be "cleaned" by the intense steam, global water overflow, and global rainfall during the Flood itself. It seems highly unlikely that they would not be seriously hampered by these effects; the typical OE assumption of the effects is without the context of such a Flood, so it would be easy for them to miss this and just blindly import their expected effects on top of the Flood without considering how the Flood would alter it.

Well, we do know that impacts into the water produce deadly toxic gasses, that a mile or two of water means nothing to a 5 km wide asteroid coming in at 12 miles/second or more.

Deadly proximity -- Well, again, we've had some strikes that destroy areas in modern times, but how widespread are the effects? I don't recall accounts offhand of wide-ranging deaths from aftereffects. So, unless these are limited only to the sizes seen in the Flood, and again wouldn't be significantly stopped by the Flood itself, this won't get us anywhere (though obviously the direct destruction would scale up). Another problem with this argument is we know of no way to determine where on the original supercontinent Noah started out from.

The shock and blast effects 400km from an event forming 105km crater look like a peak overpressure of 325 psi, winds of over 2000 miles per hour, clothing ignites, steal buildings are destroyed. The ark is gone. Noah and family are dead. Would Noah have been that close to anything that large? It does not appear so. So you could probably get away with claiming Noah and the ark would not have been immediately destroyed directly because of an impact based on where they occurred and the likely positions of the ark during the flood year.

So the real problems are going to remain the large tidal waves, massive climactic effects from so many in so short of time, difficulty recovering from those effects in any reasonable period of time - specifcally the Biblical flood timeframe.

[/QUOTE]
Ice age versus farming -- well, unless snowball Earth actually happened, Noah's landing in Mesopotamia already explains that issue.[/QUOTE]

Well that is one of the problems. So many impacts in so short a time ... the after effects that would be part of that scenario are not what the history implies.

Not sure what you mean about large scars reburied. Could you clarify?

Sure - Vredefort. over a billion years ago long ages scenario. Fresh 160 km basin over 1.5 miles deep flood scenario. How did it get virtually erased over the 4500 years between then and now as required if you are going to explain the sediments of the Earth by a global flood? And Chuxulub. And so on. Most of these big craters both penetrated and where buried by flood sediments in your scenario.

BTW - the chesepeake bay was an impact in to the ocean. Impacts into dry land tend to be a little different than impacts into the ocean because the ocean rushes back in after the impact. Many of the impacts clearly where not in an ocean - but they ALL had to be to have any chance of them not being noticed by humans if they occurred <6000 years ago.

We return to the issue of massive inconsistencies in the flood hypothesis. If you try to put them all DURING the flood, it doesn't add up. But if you try to put them all in the last 6000 years, but NOT during the flood, it still doesn't add up.

But if you let them fall over 4.5 billion years, with massive time gaps between impacts, and different geologies and environments where they fall, then it all adds up. It makes perfect sense. We don't have any records of these massive impacts because human civilization didn't come along until long after they fell. We didn't go extinct because of Chixulub likek the dinosaurs did because it happened 65 million years ago.

BTW - how do you get ALL the dinosaurs buried UNDER the K/T boundary in a flood scenario - but all the modern mammals above it ... ???

Large vs. small. This is a more complicated one. One factor is that normal statistics would seem to predict what you describe (for the most part); if smaller ones are obscured at the same statistical ranges as larger ones, they're more likely to be completely eroded away (or the ones that aren't wouldn't be noticed today as easily), and only the ones that are in areas and times more akin to the footprint preservation conditions are left, but larger ones would be less likely to escape such erosion. And larger ones will automatically have more trouble escaping erosion as they can't "hide" in smaller regions left alone by the currents and so forth -- especially if they themselves will cause more turbulence! Another issue is that creationists have proposed that many larger craters are being misinterpreted and not yet researched enough to see if they are that due to OE bias. We may have better preserved large ones.

You can lay that OE bias thing to rest. The elements REQUIRED to show a formation is an impact can ONLY be produced by the massive heat and pressure of an impact event. Shocket Quartz, Shatter Cones, Tektites, eject fields. These things are very unique tells, and no-one will even consider calling a hole in the ground a meteor impact unless you find most or all of them there.

Another factor is the initiation event theory. It would presumably take an enormous impact to trigger oceanic plate subduction! Since the evidence on other bodies shows mostly a single momentary event,

??? by bodies - do you mean the moon, mercury, mars, asteroids themselves, other solar system moons? If so - you have got is WAY wrong ...

one side of each body takes the biggest hits, including Earth. Presumably the land side was aimed away at the time of that impact. While some larger pieces could still come down later (and some smaller ones may have been accelerated faster due to the breakup so would have been hitting earlier too and were erased by the Flood onset), most of the later ones after the one or ones that triggered the subduction would be expected to be smaller and thus happen at gentler times during the Flood. (Or, again, have a greater statistical likelihood of hitting areas that were at the times they were.)

No - that doesn't explain anything. The distribution on the Earth, the Moon. Mars etc do not support this at all. In fact, one of the big problems you have is that the number of impacts preserved on no-geologically active bodies is so LARGE compared to the Earth that there is no reasonable explanation AT ALL in a YEC scenario, flood or no flood. Why would the Moon literally be covered on literally every inch of its surface and the Earth - which is quite a bit larger in terms of a target, have relatively so few without very, very long periods of time being involved? The number of impacts the Earth would have absorbed and erased to account for what we see on the moon in just 6000 years would be insane to try to justify. The crust may well still be molten - so would the moon. This is just getting kind of silly when you've only got 6000 years to work with and you major explanation for all the geological activity necessary to erase them all and recover the Earth to a livable state is the flood.

ox, you seem to be confirming that you're making the very mistake I pointed out above here -- that you're importing the side effects from your own view uncritically. Those conclusions are reached in your view because it does not have a global Flood! That's circular reasoning...

I really don't think so. I am sure some of my statements might prove slightly exaggerated given intense analysis, some likely would prove understated as well. But I am quite certain you can't account for the cratering on the Earth in just 6000 years - flood or no flood. And I know you can't account for the surface of the moon with just a 6000 year history and not also completely decimate the Earth far beyond anything we've discussed so far . And I know you have no possibility of explaining the difference between the surface of the moon and the Earth in just 6000 years. You'd have to fall back to some sort of appearance of history thing to get the moon, mars, mercury no matter how hard you tried*. They where just made that way. Those lunar impact craters can't be part of the ongoing history from the 6000 year creation to the present. You just can't produce that surface in one year, or even 1000 years without some sort of super special shield over the Earth. Remember, the meteor storm to do that ... The earth and the moon are not sitting still. They are in orbit around the Sun. A swarm following the moon but avoiding the Earth - ???? No way. The Earth is bigger. These things are going to fall to Earth before they hit the moon. It's just wrong in so many ways.


Jim

*It is generally accepted that the reason the Earth and Venus are not ALSO covered with craters like the Moon, Mars, Mercury and all the solar system moons and asteroids is that their atmospheres and geologies allowed them, over the eons, to erase their scars. But the events that have made all of these rocky surfaces crater scarred are solar system wide. The Earth did not escape, it's just that it's surface has had time to be remade many, many times.

[Jorge]

Jorge:

I kind of agree with this argument (referring to the ad hoc assumptions like inflation added to prop up things like the Big Bang despite contrary evidence), but I'm not sure about how you're using it. People on our side have called those "secular miracles", but how literally do they intend it? (How literally do you intend it?) It makes sense that an atheist or a deist would see physics causes outside normal observation as on the table (describable as "secular miracles") and not ones caused by God.

Where I agree is that it shows inconsistency with forensics science, anthropology, etc. where the same process of concluding causes from observed effects is used with intelligence ON the table; it shows an anti-theistic (or at least a deistic) bias that is not rational.

Since you appear to be well informed in these matters your questions don't make any sense (to me). Unlike these people, I do not speak with a forked-tongue or try to conceal my true motives. See more below ...

Yes, but your focusing on "miracles" here is equivocation, since they're clearly not using the same definition of it that those on our side do when they say "secular miracles"; they're clearly using the more common definition of an act by an intelligence.

I was using "miracles" in a 'universal' sense, a sense that I settled on decades ago.
In that sense Materialists invoke miracles into their "science" more often than Christians do.
The difference is that they will slap the "science" label on those miracles while at the same
time emphasizing the "religious" label on biblical miracles. It is dishonesty personified.
So I think you've got it wrong and/or backwards (depending on the point).

Jorge... Yes, ox is going way, way too far in saying there's no evidence, but most of his reactions to your search results argument look honest and natural to me. You have no idea of what you're saying! I had some of the same reactions, and I have no reason from bias to do that. It's difficult to see why you didn't simply admit you misquoted your search. You should expect, if that's how you're going to present your argument, that they would try to "replicate your results" if you'll pardon the allusion. That's actually what they should do. Noble Bereans, right? And BTW, you're giving the impression that you think Christians aren't supposed to admit when we're wrong (because it is clearly proven you were wrong on that detail). But we are -- more than anybody else if anything. As nicely and concisely as I can put it, you simply do not have the experience that I have with these people, including OX. You're up to post #122 or thereabouts. I've probably exceeded 16,000 posts by now so when I tell you that "honest and natural" should not be applied to these people (including OX) then at the very least you ought to pause a bit. More below ...

I'll be honest, though -- given the amount of study I've done from both sides on this issue, ox's original claim had me practically ROFLing too. :P But I don't blame him for that assumption -- it's what he's been indoctrinated to believe. You seem to feel like if somebody parrots what they've been taught it proves they're the devil incarnate or something. He isn't evil because he repeated a popular falsehood -- he's misled. I hear you loud and clear. I too was "indoctrinated" (during my schooling) as were you. But you (and I) broke free of our indoctrination, right? I give everyone the benefit of the doubt UNTIL they prove to me that such a benefit is unwarranted. After many years at this I believe that I have been given that proof in spades. More below ...

No idea if he's willing to reconsider, though. You seem to be saying you've tried and given up on him, but frankly from the perspective of somebody walking into your discussion later, I'm not seeing much sign that you have actually made good arguments. Consider a 5-hour movie and you've walked into it during the last 10 minutes. OF COURSE you're not seeing what has led to my present position!!! Don't be bamboozled by these people. Like the recent Congressional hearings of Loretta Lynch in which Lynch came across as "civil, tame, respectful, educated, cooperative", these people display a similar facade. Yet the fact is that Lynch was filled with contempt, dishonesty and lies towards that committee and all American citizens. Apply the same to these people. Your approach looks more counterproductive than anything. And in my experience when you're dealing with somebody like that (whether he or others here are like that or not) it's crucial that you play to the audience, as it were, and take it as opportunities to continue to show the resounding evidence and where possible proof for others reading along who might not have seen what came before. If you do that, and you're right about him, he'll eventually learn to shut up (or try to distract from the real issues, which you can also point out) because he's just helping you further your cause. Again, you simply do not have the historical background.

(Sorry to keep using you as the example, ox... I mean it only as a hypothetical example. :P You seem fairly reasonable to me so far. To an extent...) 'OX' and 'reasonable' spell o-x-y-m-o-r-o-n



Well, that's something you can use -- but simply claiming that it's the case isn't how to do it. Focus on showing WHY they're wrong. (And make sure you aren't first, if you can!) Been there; done that; closet full of T-shirts. I keep getting the impression that you think that this is reason for you to NOT point to the evidence and defeat their arguments and questions (some of which I find to be reasonable... but even the unreasonable ones can be persuasive to others reading along and may need nuked). But this is not how I see biblical takedowns working -- they can get quite "harsh" but they do it while proving from the evidence that their case is correct. Too bad you weren't around ten (10) years ago. Your post here would be entirely different, I assure you.

Believe whatever you wish, LB - I am not here to try to convince you. I can only tell you of my own experiences. These people will "appear" to be civil and reasonable UNTIL you step on their false "god", false "christ" and/or false "bible". Then the last thing you will see is "reasonable". One guy that used to post here finally could not take it any more after being expelled from TWeb. He sent me a PM in which he suggested to me that several people here were actually, quote, "insane" unquote. As time goes by I've come closer to accepting his thesis. Buyer beware!

Jorge

[logician bones]

Lurch:

What is the RS model, and how in the world does it create radical changes in the internal volume of the Earth? Better yet, how does it create them in the matter of days?

Runaway subduction, a type of CPT (catastrophic plate tectonics) model, the main one right now.

This vague volume question appears to be clarified in your next statement, so I'll reply below.

Also, not sure offhand of the proposed timescale. It had to be less than a year, but unsure if days is correct, or if we can know that yet.

No process makes significant, rapid, global changes to the interior of the earth other than a catastrophic impact. There's simply not enough energy available to do this.

It sounds like you're asking what enables the runaway process to start. What was proposed was that the old oceanic plates were heavier than the mantle, and eventually gave way (whether triggered early or not).

evidence of rapid tectonic motion

The main example as far as I know is the magnetic banding at the seafloor ridges. There's also the too-large still-subducted region of the crust that was detected recently, as well. Other evidence for that step is more indirect, like all the geologic evidence of the Flood implying something triggered it, and this model explaining where the water would come from.

Remnants of plates are expected to persist for millions of years.

The argument was that this is too big. What's actually expected under known physics would have to be settled by science, not bald assertions like this; I wouldn't know, but given the map that was shown, it does seem extremely unlikely. Millions of years is a long time.

at a higher altitude, the water would have to occupy a greater volume

That's true, but it will not just stack above the existing ocean level. It will go sideways, and flood a lot of land. It doesn't need to go all the way to the top of Everest in my opinion (if Everest were there), or even some shorter mountain heights. But it may have covered all mountaintops globally that were there prior to the tectonic event.

And it isn't just moving water; it moves mantle material up, so the continents would sink somewhat as well.

You claim later that there isn't enough water -- but that's already covered by this very model. The question is if that water really did cover the land, and by what model if so. Also how "covered" is defined.

Noah's ark would be shaken to bits before the water could get to it.

Maybe, but given that you've apparently just heard of this model, I'm skeptical as to whether you've actually proven that. See above considerations. Maybe it would still be too much, though; I don't know.


ox:

I think you missed a 'person' divider - you seem to move at this point from Roy's post to my own.

I would like to thank you up front for taking the time to try to address the issues raised in a calm and thoughtful manner. We may not agree after all is said and done, but a least it is a discussion and in that the possibility exists for information exchange.

Sorry for missing the divider, and thank you. Exactly. :)

This just can't be dealt with in a flood scenario. The flood doesn't sort animals by type - only by buoyancy or location.

You're forgetting that type influences bouyancy, location, and likely other things like behavior (relevant for swimming creatures at least). I'm not saying this proves it works, but blind-faith "it can't be dealt with" universal negatives are a bad idea. Each case needs to be tested with all possible factors, and in some cases we may not be able to fully test cases.

And the turbid waters of a flood should tend to mix things together. We should not be able to use index fossils at all if a massive flood were the source.

But now you contradict the "total gentleness" interpretation of for example Beagle, by going for a total turbulence (or close to it). Turbulence would depend on every localized and large-scale factor; vague generalities do not answer whether a specific sorting feature would really be there or not.

The kind of initiation of the flood you are proposing, to leave the evidence we have, would be TOO CATASTROPHIC - by many orders of magnitude.

Since my last post I did find a quote from Oard seeming to confirm this is a legitimate problem. He doesn't go into much detail, and seems to appeal to miracles to get out of it (at least as a possibility). (Note that initiation isn't the issue, though, or not so far as we know as that depends on how close to the verge of RS the old ocean plate already was, but the effects of the strikes in Flood layers.)

The other issues are things are far to stable in the solar system now for an event like a planet break-up that to have occurred just 4500 years ago.

I found a quote agreeing with that as well. However, it does not rule out some of the other suggestions like a very long-period comet or fragments of one, or a system-wide sweep-through of material from outside our system that does not return. (Some of this would be captured, probably, but not much.)

Well one critical aspect you are missing is the that aquifers destroyed by the impact in the impact area existed and were/are stable in the layers penetrated out side the area of the impact. Not sure how you are going to set up stable aquifers in flood borne deposition just 4500 years ago.

I'd need more detail on this and don't have time to research it right now. From your first post there you just said rock, and we can have rock there. Esp. since that crater is said to be late Flood.

I'd like to see a self consistent explanation for penetration to the basement rock of LITHIFIED sediment DURING the flood. The asteroid did not punch through mud.

I'd still need more research, but it sounds like this admits the above argument depends on the premise of no lithification? But you cited volcanic rock, which presumably would harden quickly in the Flood, and this doesn't engage with the evidence for rapid cementation of sediments either.

not THESE tidal waves! [...] The wave itself wold be hundreds of feet tall even out at sea.

Okay, but are you sure it would be very steep? (AKA Interstellar levels of steepness or something akin to that?) Keep in mind I'm still saying that this is a problem since the Ark starts out on land.


No, I wasn't saying there would only be one impact in the Flood; the view was that most were from the Flood. Not sure where you got that idea, but anywho...

how did that K/T boundary form during a flood - and where did the soot come from???

Well, although this gets into stages of the Flood where exactly what layer means what is very debated, based on what I've seen it looks like Jurassic and Cretaceous are the end of the inrush period, when there would be some time for settling and drying before the rain and more gradual oceanic uplift parts of the Flood took over (evidenced from frequent footprints in stages around here for example). There are several layers of "soot" (presuming you mean the iridium layers), and at the K/T boundary is the largest one; the largest lull period, when it would accumulate more. So, basically, the dinosaurs died below the largest accumulation of it, which makes sense.

Would Noah have been that close to anything that large? It does not appear so. So you could probably get away with claiming Noah and the ark would not have been immediately destroyed directly because of an impact based on where they occurred and the likely positions of the ark during the flood year.

So the real problems are going to remain the large tidal waves, massive climactic effects from so many in so short of time, difficulty recovering from those effects in any reasonable period of time - specifcally the Biblical flood timeframe.

Thank you for clarifying.

how do you get ALL the dinosaurs buried UNDER the K/T boundary in a flood scenario - but all the modern mammals above it

There's [three] main arguments here. (Keep in mind, though, that some "modern" mammals may be found in dino levels.) First, if a mammal fossil is from the Flood, being warm-blooded (yes, I know it's debated whether dinos were too), they could survive longer. Second, above this level it's highly debated just what is and isn't Flood; many of these may be post-Flood, and dinos would be unlikely to survive long then.

[Edit: Forgot habitat, though I don't recall seeing this mentioned a lot to this specific question. It would seem offhand to make sense that dinosaurs tend to live with dinosaurs, considering scales and other defenses like those of the ceratopsians would presumably be better for fending off the ones like the tyrannosaurs than fur.]

You can lay that OE bias thing to rest. The elements REQUIRED to show a formation is an impact can ONLY be produced by the massive heat and pressure of an impact event.

You appear to have taken that part the opposite of how I meant it. The proposal was that OEs may not be investigating enough sites already to see if these features are there to confirm they are impact craters, and the prediction was there may be more than are thought. Unsure offhand what the basis of that argument was, though. I think it came from Oard as well, and before the admission mentioned above.

do you mean the moon, mercury, mars, asteroids themselves, other solar system moons? If so - you have got is WAY wrong ...

Well, bald assertion, but I wasn't sure offhand when I said that which bodies were meant. Since reviewing, the evidence is primarily for our moon. I found a vague mention of other bodies without detail. I'd need to research more to track down where I got that from.

The assumption was that since the moon was hit by a major event, Earth probably was too.

one of the big problems you have is that the number of impacts preserved on no-geologically active bodies is so LARGE compared to the Earth that there is no reasonable explanation AT ALL in a YEC scenario, flood or no flood.

One of the sources, I forget which, did agree this is a problem.

You'd have to fall back to some sort of appearance of history thing to get the moon, mars, mercury

Maybe. Unless something about the creation event would somehow change this (apparently most of these were before the big lunar event). Do you have the means to give a good estimate of the absolute minimum for this? (Go for the Earth first since we don't know how localized the events on other bodies were, if you can, from known craters -- and yes I understand the real number would be larger than that if as suggested above there are many untested impact craters here.)

To clarify my question, I'm wondering basically if we put all the impacts on Earth during the lifetime of humans, do you have the means to show a minimum age of the Earth under that hypothesis? Could it still get into the thousands range?




Jorge:

Since you appear to be well informed in these matters your questions don't make any sense (to me). Unlike these people, I do not speak with a forked-tongue or try to conceal my true motives.

Well, if it helps, I'm just concerned because too often I see many on our side letting bad arguments go unchallenged just because the person making them is on the same side. The Bible clearly teaches this should not be done. I'm not trying to guess what your motives are; I'm just trying to see if your arguments make sense to me, and if not, to try to offer constructive criticism.

I was using "miracles" in a 'universal' sense, a sense that I settled on decades ago.
In that sense Materialists invoke miracles into their "science" more often than Christians do.
The difference is that they will slap the "science" label on those miracles while at the same
time emphasizing the "religious" label on biblical miracles. It is dishonesty personified.

That's basically what I was asking, so thanks for clarifying. Just remember that people won't automatically expect that definition and may interpret your arguments as equivocation if you aren't careful with it. I think the argument works, basically, as long as you make it clear you know they don't use the word that way and you want to make a point about how the definition you're using does apply.

As nicely and concisely as I can put it, you simply do not have the experience that I have with these people, including OX. You're up to post #122 or thereabouts. I've probably exceeded 16,000 posts by now so when I tell you that "honest and natural" should not be applied to these people (including OX) then at the very least you ought to pause a bit.

I'm not leaping to any conclusions about anyone, Jorge. But I have seen many times, elsewhere, evidence that many on my side don't realize serious strategic mistakes they are making, and the pattern of your style seems to match it in a lot of ways. Unfortunately it won't be easy to explain why without just replying on a case by case basis over time (if I'll even have the time)... just keep it in mind. I respect your experience and all that, and I'm well aware they misrepresent you to some extent. But that doesn't mean you have no room for improvement (and I know I've got plenty too).

I hear you loud and clear. I too was "indoctrinated" (during my schooling) as were you. But you (and I) broke free of our indoctrination, right?

Yeah, but here's the thing -- I don't recall any of the people who challenged me to break out of it using the kind of approach you use. Admittedly I'm still only just barely learning what your approach is (approaches are), though.

Too bad you weren't around ten (10) years ago. Your post here would be entirely different, I assure you.

Well that's just it. I am new here, and I don't know them yet, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt for now, right?

These people will "appear" to be civil and reasonable UNTIL you step on their false "god", false "christ" and/or false "bible". Then the last thing you will see is "reasonable".

Well, I know that that happens. We'll see.

[rogue06]

It would be nothing short of a miracle if you ever admitted as much. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Why would I "admit" to something that isn't even remotely true?

I have recently and more-than-adequately presented my case for that claim.
You appear to have added senility to your usual dishonesty.

Jorge

Your concept of "more-than-adequately present[ing] my case" is ... unique. It amounts to little more than circular reasoning. Only YECs are Christians because only YECs are Christians.

[rogue06]

logician bones:

A few things.

There is increasing evidence that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

You don't find modern mammals living at the time of dinosaurs.

If they existed at the same time we should expect to see dinosaurs that occupied the same ecological niches mixed together with modern mammals. For example, we should see the remains of Triceratops with rhinoceros. We should see the remains of large marine reptiles like Ichthyosaurs with dolphins and sharks.

shark-ichthyosaur-dolphin.jpg

Just food for thought.

ETA: I really wish you would break up your responses to different people into separate posts

[Jorge]

Why would I "admit" to something that isn't even remotely true?

Yeah ... right ... sure ... anything you say.

Your concept of "more-than-adequately present[ing] my case" is ... unique. It amounts to little more than circular reasoning. Only YECs are Christians because only YECs are Christians.

Preposterous and you know it! The above is yet another example of the stark dishonesty of
you people - a dishonesty that I have learned to recognize at the utterance if the first syllable.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Preposterous and you know it! The above is yet another example of the stark dishonesty of you people - a dishonesty that I have learned to recognize at the utterance if the first syllable.

Good one Clucky! Keep showing everyone what a colossal ass you are by claiming all who disagree with your YEC lies must be dishonest.

[TheLurch]

It sounds like you're asking what enables the runaway process to start. What was proposed was that the old oceanic plates were heavier than the mantle, and eventually gave way (whether triggered early or not).

So, again, there's no physically plausible reason.

The main example as far as I know is the magnetic banding at the seafloor ridges.

That's evidence for gradual plate motion.

The argument was that this is too big. What's actually expected under known physics would have to be settled by science, not bald assertions like this; I wouldn't know, but given the map that was shown, it does seem extremely unlikely. Millions of years is a long time.

It doesn't need to go all the way to the top of Everest in my opinion (if Everest were there), or even some shorter mountain heights. But it may have covered all mountaintops globally that were there prior to the tectonic event.

So, you're going to demand a literal reading of the bible to say there was a global flood, but reinterpret it when you find it convenient to do so?

19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

Maybe, but given that you've apparently just heard of this model, I'm skeptical as to whether you've actually proven that. See above considerations. Maybe it would still be too much, though; I don't know.

I've given you actual numbers that show the model is impossibly flawed. Responding with what's effectively "but there's a model!" is not an argument.

[oxmixmudd]

ox:


Sorry for missing the divider, and thank you. Exactly. :)

NP - and I am glad to discuss virtually any element of these debates as we have been discussing them.

You're forgetting that type influences bouyancy, location, and likely other things like behavior (relevant for swimming creatures at least). I'm not saying this proves it works, but blind-faith "it can't be dealt with" universal negatives are a bad idea. Each case needs to be tested with all possible factors, and in some cases we may not be able to fully test cases.

I admit I'm being a bit lazy. I don't really have the time to go and show that for a given area of the world the fossils found there should be mixed if they were all alive at the same time.

Nevertheless, it would seem to me the fact we NEVER find modern mammals and dinosuars (other than birds of course) mixed together undoes the point of the argument you are making. We are talking a HUGE amount of sediment above that K/T boundary in some cases. Yet regardless of that fact, the animals we find above the K/T are always animals that are NOT dinosaurs. The simple fact is, dinosaurs occupied every ecological niche. There is no type, location, or behavioural issue that could produce that kind of absolute separation. And I don't think I need to prove that assertion. The separation is absolute. My statement would seem self-evident. Dinosaurs and mammals are found in the same areas and of the same sizes as mammals all over the world. It's just that the sediments with dinosaurs are always separated from and beneath the sediments for modern mammals any place where both are found (I am ignoring thinks like uplift and folding for now which can displace a block of sediments, even invert it).

But now you contradict the "total gentleness" interpretation of for example Beagle, by going for a total turbulence (or close to it). Turbulence would depend on every localized and large-scale factor; vague generalities do not answer whether a specific sorting feature would really be there or not.

What would be required to produce the absolute separation we see logician. I think you'd be looking for on a very broad (global actually) scale

1) TOTAL isolation of dinosaurs from modern mammals. NO habitats they occupied at the same time
2) All dinosaur habitats buried FIRST slowly and without being mixed with any 'foreign' modern mammals.
3) All areas where modern mammals were buried on top would have necessarily had then transported to those areas later OR the modern animals would have had to have floated around for a fairly good while during the time all the dinosaurs , large and small, marine and land, were buried, and then after would have finally also been laid down.


Does something like that seem even remotely plausible world wide?

Keeping in mind, most dinosaurs bones are HOLLOW like the birds(One reason they could grow so large), which made their density typically LESS than that of a comparably sized mammal. Given this - how did ALL the dino's sink first?

Since my last post I did find a quote from Oard seeming to confirm this is a legitimate problem. He doesn't go into much detail, and seems to appeal to miracles to get out of it (at least as a possibility). (Note that initiation isn't the issue, though, or not so far as we know as that depends on how close to the verge of RS the old ocean plate already was, but the effects of the strikes in Flood layers.)



I found a quote agreeing with that as well. However, it does not rule out some of the other suggestions like a very long-period comet or fragments of one, or a system-wide sweep-through of material from outside our system that does not return. (Some of this would be captured, probably, but not much.)

Lots of problems still though. Look at the density of craters on ceres, mercury and the moon. Together they represent the inner 200+million mile radius of the solar system.

Ceres caters.jpg Mercury_4394153.jpgLunarDay9.jpg

(in the interests of absolute honesty, there is a mystery as to why there are not older craters found on ceres)

But as you can see, the raw number of craters on these three bodies implies a solarsystem wide event (or history) of impacts of a number that would have left far more scars on the earth than there are presently found. The problem being - if this was a single event and just 4500 years ago - where did they go? You can't wipe away hundreds or thousands (based on the counts seen on these bodies) of mile deep holes in the earth 10s to even hundreds of miles wide even with a global flood. Even buried under sediments, gravimetric maps would reveal them.

Most of them are just gone - wiped out by hundreds of millions of years of erosion and plate tektonics. You've got to compress all of that into just 1 year or less. Does it not begin to go beyond what it is possible as the natural consequence of such a flood? This is why I tend to say one is forced to move to 'appearance of age' as a general strategy for the creation of the solar system in YEC. The natural consequences of a flood or other miraculuous events associated with a recent creation just can't explain it. There has to be a purposed concealment of what really happened under a facade of billions of years of history. And theologically I find that MUCH more troubling than the idea God's purpose in Genesis allowed the use of metaphor and even borrowed cultural conceptual terms because the purpose was theological, not scientific revelation.

I'd need more detail on this and don't have time to research it right now. From your first post there you just said rock, and we can have rock there. Esp. since that crater is said to be late Flood.



I'd still need more research, but it sounds like this admits the above argument depends on the premise of no lithification? But you cited volcanic rock, which presumably would harden quickly in the Flood, and this doesn't engage with the evidence for rapid cementation of sediments either.

The chesapeake specifically penetrated many thousands of feet of sediments down to the bedrock. The aquifers in those sediments formed after the sediments lithified, filled with water, and then were destroyed in the area around the impact by the impact.

Okay, but are you sure it would be very steep? (AKA Interstellar levels of steepness or something akin to that?) Keep in mind I'm still saying that this is a problem since the Ark starts out on land.

I can't really answer that. The impact penetrated to the bedrock - vaporizing what ever depth of ocean existed at the time. The explosion and shock would have first pushed out away from the impact, and analysis indicates 1000 foot+ tidalwaves overtopping the blueridge hundreds of miles away. In a flood scenario the waves would have been the same size, but they would have flowed over water and underwater land masses up and down. But it would be a lot of speculation on my part to try to translate what is known based on a non flood topography to what 'might have been' assuming a worldwide flood. We do know from analysis of the underlying breccia that very soon after the impact the ocean rushed back in, moving huge blocks of rock inward. The event's violence and power is very hard to comprehend.

No, I wasn't saying there would only be one impact in the Flood; the view was that most were from the Flood. Not sure where you got that idea, but anywho...

My point was more of a reminder there were many you must account for. 3 are extinction level with craters >120km (Vredefort,Chicxulub, Sudbury). Chesapeake is number 19 on that list.

Well, although this gets into stages of the Flood where exactly what layer means what is very debated, based on what I've seen it looks like Jurassic and Cretaceous are the end of the inrush period, when there would be some time for settling and drying before the rain and more gradual oceanic uplift parts of the Flood took over (evidenced from frequent footprints in stages around here for example). There are several layers of "soot" (presuming you mean the iridium layers), and at the K/T boundary is the largest one; the largest lull period, when it would accumulate more. So, basically, the dinosaurs died below the largest accumulation of it, which makes sense.

The soot is soot. Burnt plant matter. When the impact occurred, molten ejecta created worldwide forest fires which left soot mixed in with the irridium enriched layer. This is hard to explain if the world was under water at the time.

Thank you for clarifying.



There's [three] main arguments here. (Keep in mind, though, that some "modern" mammals may be found in dino levels.) First, if a mammal fossil is from the Flood, being warm-blooded (yes, I know it's debated whether dinos were too), they could survive longer. Second, above this level it's highly debated just what is and isn't Flood; many of these may be post-Flood, and dinos would be unlikely to survive long then.

Hundreds to Thousands of feet of sediments post flood - world wide ???

[Edit: Forgot habitat, though I don't recall seeing this mentioned a lot to this specific question. It would seem offhand to make sense that dinosaurs tend to live with dinosaurs, considering scales and other defenses like those of the ceratopsians would presumably be better for fending off the ones like the tyrannosaurs than fur.]



You appear to have taken that part the opposite of how I meant it. The proposal was that OEs may not be investigating enough sites already to see if these features are there to confirm they are impact craters, and the prediction was there may be more than are thought. Unsure offhand what the basis of that argument was, though. I think it came from Oard as well, and before the admission mentioned above.

We are finding more and more. But few are obvious. Most have been well buried or eroded by time. And to be classed an impact event there must be artifacts there that can only be produced by such and event, such as shatter cones and shocked quartz. So it will be harder to class smaller events conclusively. For example, there are no shatter cones or shocked quartz expected to be directly tied to tunguska (just not powerful enough), but we are pretty sure because of eyewitness reports it was produced by a bolide (large meteor explosion).
(Oddly though, there is some shocked quartz in the are, pointing to the possibility of a very ancient impact ALSO in the area)

Well, bald assertion, but I wasn't sure offhand when I said that which bodies were meant. Since reviewing, the evidence is primarily for our moon. I found a vague mention of other bodies without detail. I'd need to research more to track down where I got that from.

The assumption was that since the moon was hit by a major event, Earth probably was too.

Yes - that makes sense. The problem is getting rid of the evidence on the Earth. billions of years is plenty of time. a few thousand not so much.

One of the sources, I forget which, did agree this is a problem.



Maybe. Unless something about the creation event would somehow change this (apparently most of these were before the big lunar event). Do you have the means to give a good estimate of the absolute minimum for this? (Go for the Earth first since we don't know how localized the events on other bodies were, if you can, from known craters -- and yes I understand the real number would be larger than that if as suggested above there are many untested impact craters here.)

To clarify my question, I'm wondering basically if we put all the impacts on Earth during the lifetime of humans, do you have the means to show a minimum age of the Earth under that hypothesis? Could it still get into the thousands range?

I'm not sure what you are asking. What I know is that to put all the known impacts in a single year 4500 years ago ... I'm just not sure how one would expect us to even still be here - ark or not. We think that 95% of life was wiped out on the Earth just from Chixulub. You've got two more in that same size class plus another 15 between it and the Chesapeake and then several hundred more that are smaller.

There are no human records for any of them, so the all have to be during the flood or before. It just doesn't make any sense from where I sit.

However - I DO tend to think that Noah's flood (a massive local event) may well have been the result of a single but smaller, as yet unidentified event. There is a lot of room for discovery of an ocean impact in the area we find the legend. I know you need it to be truly global, but I don't think it needs to be to real and to fit what scripture describes. And there is a suspicious crater like formation in the Indian ocean that if ever verified as a recent impact would be a good candidate. Not holding my breath, but at least such an event would be plausible. A global flood with hundreds of impacts, 3 in the Chicxulub class, I just can't see supported by the evidence at all.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Correction - I mispoke as relates to 'ALL' when it comes to hollow dinosaur bones. Many dinosaurs had hollow bones (especially of course those from which birds descended), but not all.

Jim

[Jorge]

Correction - I mispoke as relates to 'ALL' when it comes to hollow dinosaur bones. Many dinosaurs had hollow bones (especially of course those from which birds descended), but not all.

Jim

Just a quick comment (no more is deserved):

See the highlighted section ... "... especially of course those from which birds descended."

Do you see what these TE/OEC charlatan, pseudo-scientists do? And they do it ALL the time!
I'm referring to this: they take a hypothesis that stems from their metaphysical beliefs and
they speak of it with the authority of it being a FACT - which, of course, it is NOT.

No, girls and boys, NO - it is NOT a "fact" that "birds descended from dinosaurs".
Do not listen to these con-artists that would have you buy into their anti-Christian myths and lies.

Then, if you don't accept their trash, they label you as "anti-science, religious, ..." and similar labels.
Like I said, they do this ALL THE TIME. It is their patented M.O. And it is my joyous life's work
to call them out on it every time I see it. Bus-ted once again, O-Mudd!!!

Okay, I did my good deed for the day. On to the next mission.

Jorge

[Roy]

No, girls and boys, NO - it is NOT a "fact" that "birds descended from dinosaurs".
Do not listen to these con-artists that would have you buy into their anti-Christian myths and lies.

Accepting that birds evolved from dinosaurs is "Anti-Christian"? Jorge once again implies that if you accept common descent you aren't a Christian.

Okay, I did my good deed for the day. On to the next mission.

Your good deed for the day, and your next mission, is the same as it's been for the last six months - to donate the TWeb the $150 from the challenge you issued and then failed to deliver against.

[Jorge]

Accepting that birds evolved from dinosaurs is "Anti-Christian"? Jorge once again implies that if you accept common descent you aren't a Christian."

"implies"??? I do not "imply" it, I've stated it boldly without mincing words!
You really do need to learn how to read for comprehension.
One caveat: I define the terms clearly and specifically, otherwise my claim doesn't hold.

Your good deed for the day, and your next mission, is the same as it's been for the last six months - to donate the TWeb the $150 from the challenge you issued and then failed to deliver against.

Like "others" here, you must enjoy providing further evidence of your dishonest character.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Just a quick comment (no more is deserved):

See the highlighted section ... "... especially of course those from which birds descended."

Do you see what these TE/OEC charlatan, pseudo-scientists do? And they do it ALL the time!
I'm referring to this: they take a hypothesis that stems from their metaphysical beliefs and
they speak of it with the authority of it being a FACT - which, of course, it is NOT.

No, girls and boys, NO - it is NOT a "fact" that "birds descended from dinosaurs".
Do not listen to these con-artists that would have you buy into their anti-Christian myths and lies.

Then, if you don't accept their trash, they label you as "anti-science, religious, ..." and similar labels.
Like I said, they do this ALL THE TIME. It is their patented M.O. And it is my joyous life's work
to call them out on it every time I see it. Bus-ted once again, O-Mudd!!!

Okay, I did my good deed for the day. On to the next mission.

Jorge

The evidence strongly implies the birds evolved from the dinosaurs. That is that. But it's not a belief in the religious sense.

That you claim those that accept common descent are not actually Christians is idiocy and a violation of the tenets of that same faith. In point of fact, IF your kind of definition of what is a real Christian was applied to you, then your own improper assessment of this issue would disqualify you as well. Christian faith has to do with belief in the Deity of Christ, His literal death burial and Resurrection. It has nothing at all to do with what one believes about HOW God made the Earth, or over what timeframe He did it.

That you may believe it is logically inconsistent to believe such is irrelevant.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Like "others" here, you must enjoy providing further evidence of your dishonest character.

Jorge

I don't see anyone else here publically lying about what the facts actually are Jorge.

See below

.
.
.
.