Skip to comments.Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They’re Absolutely Enormous
Posted on 09/30/2012 6:17:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurreduntil one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.
After teaching geology at the University of Washington for a decade, I had become embarrassed that I hadnt yet seen the deep canyons where tremendous Ice Age floods scoured down into solid rock to sculpt the scablands. So I decided to help lead a field trip for students to see the giant erosion scars on the local landforms.
We drove across the Columbia River and continued eastward, dropping into Moses Coulee, a canyon with vertical walls of layered basalt. We gathered the students on a small rise and asked them how the canyon had formed. They immediately ruled out wind and glaciers. The valley was not U-shaped like a typical glacial valley, and none of us could imagine how wind might gouge a canyon out of hard basalt. But neither were there rivers or streams. After a while I pointed out that we were standing on a pile of gravel. I asked how the rounded granite pebbles came to be there when the closest source of granite lay over the horizon.
Hiking through eastern Washington canyons littered with exotic boulders is a standard field trip for beginning geologists. It takes a while to register what you see. A dry waterfall hundreds of feet high in the middle of the desert. Giant potholes where no river flows today. Granite boulders parked in a basalt canyon. Gradually the contradictions fall into place and a story unfolds. Where did wayward boulders the size of a car or house come from? What was the source of the water that moved them around and carved the falls? Today, even novice geologists can conjure up eastern Washingtons giant floods.
Long before the discovery of the scablands, geologists dismissed the role of catastrophic floods in interpreting European geology. By the end of the 19th century such ideas not only were out of fashion but were geological heresy. When J Harlen Bretz uncovered evidence of giant floods in eastern Washington in the 1920s, it took most of the 20th century for other geologists to believe him. Geologists had so thoroughly vilified the concept of great floods that they could not believe it when somebody actually found evidence of one.
Bretz was a classic field geologist and a controversial figure throughout his career. In 1925 he presented the story of the regions giant floods, seeing what others at first could notand then would notsee. He spent his lifetime piecing together the story of how a raging wall of water hundreds of feet high roared across eastern Washington, carving deep channels before cascading down the Columbia River Gorge as a wall of water high enough to turn Oregons Willamette Valley into a vast backwater lake.
Bretz found exotic granite boulders perched on basalt cliffs hundreds of feet above the highest recorded river level. In the scablands, a desolate region stripped of soil, he came across dry waterfalls and potholes hundreds of feet above the modern river. Gigantic gravel bars deposited within dry valleys implied deep, fast-flowing water. Streamlined hills rose like islands, extending more than 100 feet above the scoured-out channelways.
He realized the chaotic landscape had been carved by an enormous flood that chewed deep channels through hundreds of feet of solid basalt. The ancient flood deposited an enormous delta around Portland, Oregon, backing up flow into the Willamette Valley. The waters, he eventually realized, could have come from catastrophic drainage of Lake Missoula, an ancient, glacier-dammed lake in western Montana.
Bretz was ridiculed until 1940, when geologist Joe Pardee described giant ripple marks on the bed of Lake Missoula. The 50-foot-high ripples, he said, were formed by fast-flowing currents and not by the sluggish bottom water of a lake. Only sudden failure of the glacial dam could have released the 2,000-foot-deep lake. The catastrophic release of 600 cubic miles of water through a narrow gap would sweep away everything in its path. In 1979, when Bretz was 97 years old, the Geological Society of America awarded him its highest honor, the Penrose Medal.
Recognition of the Missoula flood helped other geologists identify similar landforms in Asia, Europe, Alaska, and the American Midwest, as well as on Mars. There is now compelling evidence for many gigantic ancient floods where glacial ice dams failed time and again: At the end of the last glaciation, some 10,000 years ago, giant ice-dammed lakes in Eurasia and North America repeatedly produced huge floods. In Siberia, rivers spilled over drainage divides and changed their courses. Englands fate as an island was sealed by erosion from glacial floods that carved the English Channel. These were not global deluges as described in the Genesis story of Noah, but were more focused catastrophic floods taking place throughout the world. They likely inspired stories like Noahs in many cultures, passed down through generations.
Since devastating floods were a fact of life on the margins of the worlds great ice sheets, people in those areas probably witnessed them. Early missionaries in eastern Washington reported stories of a great flood among Yakima and Spokane tribes, who could identify locations where survivors sought refuge. An Ojibwa Indian legend from around Lake Superior tells of a great snow that fell one September at the beginning of time: A bag contained the suns heat until a mouse nibbled a hole in it. The warmth spilled over, melting the snow and producing a flood that rose above the tops of the highest pines. Everyone drowned except for an old man who drifted about in his canoe rescuing animals. The native inhabitants of the Willamette Valley told stories of a time the valley filled with water, forcing everyone to flee up a mountain before the waters receded.
Did survivors of such events pass their stories down through the ages? Could the biblical story of Noah, on some level, be real?
Tsangpo Gorge Flood, Tibet
The Legend: Local folklore describes a traditional Buddhist pilgrimage that circled a small peak ringed by lake terraces. The pilgrims commemorated how Guru Rimpoche brought Buddhism to Tibet by defeating a powerful lake demon, draining its home to reveal fertile farmland. A local temple, which sits on top of a stack of ancient lake sediments, has a striking mural of Guru Rimpoche above a lake at the gorge entrance. The Temples head lama believes the ocean once covered all of Tibet.
The Evidence: During a 2002 expedition, geologist David Montgomery studied how the Tsangpo River once sawed through rock, carving the worlds deepest gorge. His team discovered ancient shorelines and 1,200-year-old wood fragments in lake sediments dating to around the time Rimpoche arrived in Tibet. At the head of the gorge, glacial debris was plastered on both sides of the valley, confirming that a massive tongue of ice once plunged down a nearby 25,000-foot-high peak. Two levels of terraces extending upstream indicated a wall of ice and mud had dammed the river, backing up a lake that filled the valley. Once the lake filled enough to breach the dam, a rush of water roared down the gorge, scouring out everything in its path.
Grand Canyon Flood
The Legend: A local Native American tribe, the Havasupai, attributes the canyons carving to a catastrophic flood down the Colorado River that occurred when the god Ho-ko-ma-ta unleashed a tremendous rainstorm. A more benevolent god, Pu-keh-eh, put his daughter in a hollowed-out log to save her from the monstrous current. After the flood receded, she crawled out and became mother of all humanity.
The Evidence: The rocks exposed in the canyon walls could not have settled during a single flood because they alternate many times in color, grain size, and composition. Although floods did not create the canyon [pdf], evidence suggests they helped shape it. Huge boulders are perched hundreds of feet above the river. Floods capable of stranding boulders so high would have been spectacular. The breaching of cooled lava dams that impounded the river may have launched these catastrophic floods. But these deluges occurred at least 400,000 years ago, long before people made it to the continent. The Native American tale of how the canyon formed is apparently an attempt to make sense of mysterious landforms.
Black Sea Flood
The Legend: In the story of Noahs Ark, the book of Genesis says Noah lived during a time when all other people on Earth were evil. God became angry and decided to create a giant flood to kill everyone except Noah and his family. God told Noah to build a boat called an ark, big enough for himself, his wife, his sons, their wives, and at least two of every animal. Once the ark was built, God sent a rainstorm that lasted 40 days. The deluge rose higher than the tallest mountain. When the waters receded, Noahs family and animals left the ark and repopulated the Earth.
The Evidence: After refuting the possibility of a global flood, geologists dismissed suggestions that the story of Noahs Flood might be rooted in some sort of fact. Then, in 1993, oceanographers Bill Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University used sonar to survey the floor of the Black Seaand found evidence supporting the story after all. Submerged beneath the surface were ancient streambeds, river-cut canyons, and shorelines. High-resolution seismic reflection profiles showed a former land surface buried in the seafloor sediments. Drill cores from the seafloor contained roots of shrubs covered by marine mud. Ryan and Pitman argued that over 7,000 years ago, the Mediterranean began to rise, breaching rocks along the Istanbul Strait, a waterway that helps form the boundary between Europe and Asia today. The event caused the Mediterranean to spill into the Black Sea, triggering a catastrophic flood.
Were early farmers in the area forced to flee as their world disappeared underwater? Archaeologists found the rising waters coincided with the onset of the initial migration of farming cultures into Europe and the floodplains of Mesopotamia. Wherever they came from, the first farmers arrived in southern Mesopotamia shortly after the filling of the Black Sea. Did they bring the story of a great flood that destroyed their world?
If you go to the high resolution version of the photo in the wiki you can see a Jeep road in the right half of the picture. I once witnessed a BMW 740 driven no doubt by some Microsoft or Amazon yuppie type, visiting from western Washington, going at least 35 on it as though it was a nicely paved road. I think I saw the car get some air at one point over a rise. I can imagine he had never been off asphalt before. Most people in pickups and SUVs go 10-15 on the road, less where it’s rocky and are in no great hurry.
It is a waste of time. Faith is a blank check on reality.
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet. Really interesting.
The mountains rose and the valleys sank.
Simple really - see hydroplate theory. Wait, never mind, I forgot you two are all about criticizing rather than reading and trying to understand what you don’t...or rather choose not to understand.
LOL, you do understand that the Earth’s crust floats over a spherical layer of liquified rock, don’t you? There is a reason why the continents on Earth today have coastal outlines which match closely with the coastlines across the oceans - western Africa with South America, eastern North America with northern Africa - the observation upon which modern plate tectonic theory was based on. What these two points imply is that the crust cannot simply rise or fall like you imagine, and that the landmass has more or less retained shape for aeons.
There is no evidence for the Earth being covered completely by water - zip, nada. Even the title of this article is misleading - the floods mentioned therein are all local floods, repetitive and not a singular, global event. If these were Noah’s “flood” then there would have to be hundreds, if not thousands, of Noahs, to gather all the fauna of Earth in rickety wooden dinghy-like boats, to “save” them during each one of these “Biblical” floods.
Ridicule seems to always be your primary tactic. Obviously you know next to nothing of creation science, information science nor especially the hydroplate theory AND you can simply NOT bring yourself to do any in-depth research.
I’m not nearly as uneducated and obtuse as your responses to me seem to indicate. So here is my creation science quiz for you and your ilk.
1. How many animals could be housed in a boat [equivalent footprint to a modern day barge] with 3 tiers?
2. How many pairs of animal kinds are required if only micro-evolution exists?
3. How much explosive force is released by super-critical water [>705 degrees farenheit and >3,200 PSI] removed from 10 miles underground.
4. How much of that water gets released permanently into outer space?
5. After that water rips wholes in the upper atmosphere how quickly does it and the accumulated debris rain back down on the earth?
6. How quickly do these changing conditions bring on the only ice-age the earth has ever known?
7. How much is carbon-dating altered if one worldwide event buried all carbon based life forms except for those survivors on the ark and in the sea?
I’m not ridiculing you when I say that faith is a blank check on reality at all. I am simply stating a fact about the nature of knowledge. Faith is subjective and is outside the realm of reason immune to evidence and requires no proof. I was simply telling Mr. Bennet that it was a waste of time to argue with it and it is.
I don’t care to consider how many animals could fit on an arc the size of a barge because there is no evidence that anything of the sort ever happened other than the story in Genesis. There is no evidence that anything in Genesis happened. I don’t accept anything on the basis of faith. You may if you wish but I stand by my statement that faith is a blank check.
Now the story clearly states that the scientists are talking about local events and we can see the evidence of those events. The story was not providing evidence of the biblical flood even though it appears in the title.
I enjoy threads about science and find them interesting even if I don’t accept them automatically but I also don’t have any reason to think the scientists are lying. If I wanted to I could look at the evidence they have accumulated and decide for myself. That is something I can’t do with the story of Noah’s arc, so there is no point in even considering it.
As far as creation science I have read some of it and I think it is junk. It starts from a belief based on nothing and looks to fit the evidence to it. Of course some scientists in other fields do the same thing, notably Global Warming which I also think is largely Junk.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I think the story of the arc is ludicrous and I also don’t believe in any world wide flood. I think creation science is junk. I was just shocked when I saw that graphic. It just seems like a shockingly small amount of water. I would have pictured it as being 3 or 4 times that amount. I don’t dispute it though.
You cited a wiki article in response to a Harvard academic article discussing peer-reviewed published research findings.... Regardless, nobody alive was there to confirm what happened but there is political as well as monetary advantage in denying the bible’s recantation of history.
|Diagram from W. Brown's website and book (Fig. 56)
showing what he calls the "Rupture Phase of the Flood"
Young-earth creationist Walter Brown, a mechanical engineer and Director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, Arizona, has developed a "Flood Model" which he believes accounts for virtually all geologic evidence. His central thesis is that only a few thousand years ago the earth's entire crust was suspended over a large reservoir of pressurized water, which suddenly and violently burst forth, releasing most of the water that caused the Noachian deluge. The model also purports to explain the origin of asteroids, meteorites, and comets in our solar system, suggesting that this massive eruption was sufficient to propel huge chunks of earth into outer space. Brown details his current model in the 8th edition of his book entitled In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, although he presented early versions of the model during the 1980's (Brown, 1986). He also provides updates and chapter summaries at his "Center for Scientific Creation" website.
Brown's model is rejected by all conventional scientists, since it conflicts with extensive geologic evidence that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old, as well as many specific lines of geologic evidence (Morton, 2003). In view of the latter, even many creationists have rejected or strongly questioned the model. One of its serious problems is the need for the proposed water reservoir to be totally sealed within the crust. This precludes any significant earthquakes, meteorite impacts, or even fissures and cracks in the crust anywhere on entire earth, even though such phenomena are well evidenced throughout the geologic record. As Christopher Sharp (2005) notes, Brown gives no satisfactory explanation as to how so much water is can be trapped below the upper layer of rock, and how that upper layer remained impervious until the flood. As demonstrated by Glenn Morton (a geologist and former creationist), the earth's surface would also have to be almost perfectly smooth--lacking any mountains or even hills-- or the crust would buckle in places and release the waters (Morton, 2003). Yet according to the Bible (Genesis 49:26) there were mountains before the Flood, which Brown accepts and even shows in a diagram (fig. 56) on his website. Another major problem is the immense heat that would be generated during the proposed cataclysmic eruption (Castagnoli, 2009; Morton, 2003; Sharp, 2005). The magnitude of such heat would have literally boiled the oceans and cooked all animals and humans, including the inhabitants of Noah's ark. Appealing to supposed experiments with "supercritical" water, Brown claims the heat would be insignificant, but the calculations of critics with appear to effectively demonstrate that the heat would indeed be more than lethal.
Brown's claim that all of the comets, meteoroids, and asteroids in our solar system originated from earth during the hydroplate explosion has also been shown to be entirely untenable (Sharp, 2005), even considering only currently orbiting comets and asteroids, let alone the millions that have already impacted on moons and planets in our solar system (as indicated by the heavy cratering on such bodies), or the mass of the earth's moon and other moons, which Brown implies were also formed from rock ejected from the earth. Sharp calculated that the energy released in ejecting just the still-existing asteroids is the equivalent to approximately twenty trillion hydrogen bombs. He remarks, "The mind completely boggles how Noah and his family, together with his menagerie of animals and plants could have possibly survived all this in a large wooden boat!" Sharp (2005) further noted, "We can calculate the motions of the asteroids back in time, and find no evidence at all that they originated from the earth, or the vicinity of the earth’s orbit, a few thousand years ago. Indeed, their orbits correspond to them being in existence in many cases for billions of years, as determined from long term stability calculations taking account of the perturbations of the planets..." Brown's astronomical claims are also contradicted by the Baptistina asteroid family, which have similar orbits and evidently were produced by an ancient collision of two large asteroids. By tracing the orbits of the resulting asteroids back in time, augmented with data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, astrophysicists have calculated that the original collision occurred about 80 million years ago (Rationalwiki, 2012).
in limestone deposits
|Ammonite fossil from the White
Cliffs of Dover, England
Brown greatly oversimplifies many aspects of geology. For example, he states: "Earth’s crust is frequently stratified with layered rock (or strata) composed of cemented sediments. These layers are typically parallel, thin, uniform in thickness, vast in area.... " He asks: "What global process sorted and cemented these sediments? Present processes do not. Why are strata so uniform in hardness?" Actually, rock strata are far from uniform in hardness, thickness, or geographic extent. Even in one outcrop they can vary from very soft and friable layers to incredibly hard beds. Strata also very greatly in grain size, type, and distribution, inclination, and many other features, precisely because they were deposited in many different environments and in many different ways, and often altered or deformed long afterward, not deposited during a single global Flood.
|Sauropod and theropod dinosaur tracks, in Cretaceous
Limestone, Glen Rose, Texas. Many additional layers of
fossiliferous or track-bearing limestone occur above and
below the picture bed. These and many other limestones
were clearly not deposited in the way Brown suggests.
© 2006, Glen J. Kuban
While trying to account for limestones in his hydroplate model, Brown shows a picture of the famous "White Cliffs of Dover" in England--a massive limestone outcrop. He suggests the strata were formed from precipitated calcium during his Flood eruption, and that "a simple, visual examination of limestone grains shows that few are ground-up seashells or corals, as some believe." However, Brown's statements are misleading at best, since no paleontologist claims the Dover Cliffs or most other limestone formations are made of "ground up" macrofossils. What they do maintain, and support with abundant evidence is that most are composed of the accumulated remains of numerous micro-fossils such as foraminifera, coccoliths, and calcareous algae, as microscopic examinations of the rocks readily reveals. The Dover limestones and many others also contain a large number and variety of macrofossils that can be easily seen with the naked eye, including ammonites (extinct squid-like creatures with coiled shells), mollusks, echinoids (urchins), brachiopods, sponges, corals, crinoids, and shark teeth (Shepherd, 2012). Moreover, the fossils in a particular limestone formation are consistently characteristic of a specific geologic period (Cretaceous in the case of the Dover Cliffs)-- with the many of the fossil species significantly different from those that lived in preceding and succeeding periods. This would not be the case if all life forms were living together prior to the Flood as Brown and other YECs assert. Finally, many such limestones include beds with thousands of vertebrate trackways and/or extensive invertebrate burrows (sometimes millions on one surface), and countless mud cracks --indicating relatively calm, low-energy environments that dramatically contradict Brown's violent Flood scenario.
Like most creationist Flood models, Brown's is vague on where the Flood occurs in the geologic column the Flood, but implies many if not most sedimentary layers were produced by it. However, no matter where he places it, major problems arise, since every geologic period from PreCambrian onward exhibits evidence for mulitiple episodes of slow deposition and non-deposition. Besides the many tracks and burrows mentioned above, these also include many other trace fossils such as nests, dens, and hives, which cannot form during a violent flood (Kuban, 2006). Nor does Brown adequately explain the pattern of radiometric dates from rocks throughout the world. All but the stratigraphically highest beds yield dates orders of magnitude older than his model allows, and show a consistent, sloping pattern from stratigraphically lower to higher strata. His proposal that radioactive decay rates may have been significantly higher in the past is lacking in any credible evidence, and is contradicted by rigorous studies (Isaac, 2004). Even if it were true, it would not yield the sloping pattern of dates mentioned above, since in his model most rocks are essentially the same age--only a few thousand years old. A higher decay rate would also exacerbate the heat problem already inherent in Brown's model. As demonstrated by Meert (2002), "Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth."
In other attempts to support young-earthism and discredit mainstream geology, Brown lists a number of supposed astronomic and geologic anomalies, including alleged out-of-place fossils, but every example is either dubious or has been well refuted. Equally problematic is what he does not reveal, including the fact that trillions of fossils have been found in the expected evolutionary order all over the world, a situation entirely at odds with his model. Brown did remove from his website a few unfounded claims (such as those about a "shrinking sun", "missing neutrinos, and a modern "Japanese plesiosaur") in the wake of compelling refutations by others (Van till, 1986; Bahcall, 2004; Kuban, 1997). However, he continues to make many other unfounded assertions and insinuations. For example, he encourages the long-discredited notion that the famous fossil Archaeopteryx, showing both bird and reptile traits, is a forgery--supposedly having had feathers impressions artificially added. This suggestion has been thoroughly debunked by paleontologists, and largely rejected even by other creationists, who accept the reality of the fossil (even though they reject it as a transitional form). Still other examples of baseless claims by Brown are detailed by physicist Gerard Jellison (2009).
Brown's model even appears to conflict with the Bible, despite his young earth views apparently stemming from a narrow reading of Genesis. Besides the problem mentioned earlier concerning pre-Flood mountains, his proposal that the subterranean water erupted due to increasing pressure from "centuries of tidal pumping" implies the Flood was due to a natural, inevitable cause, rather than God's response to humanity's rampant wickedness as indicated in Genesis (6: 5-7).
Brown has issued a challenge to evolutionists to debate him on his hydroplate theory, but has stipulated a number of questionable and one-sided conditions, and repeatedly evaded attempts by mainstream scientists to accept his offer (Foley, 2004; Isaac, 2004; Meert, 2006; Castagnoli, 2009; Jellison, 2009). To my knowledge he has not published his theory in any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, or even the quasi-scientific YEC journals, nor even submitted a manuscript to such publications. He often bemoans evolutionist bias, but according to Answers in Genesis (the most prominent YEC group), when he was invited to submit a manuscript to their Technical Journal, he declined.
AIG, 2008, Anonymous article at Answers in Genesis Website, at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wog/white-cliffs-dover
Arthur, Joyce, 1995, A Few Silly Flaws In Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory. Website article at: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html. Note: Brown had made a number of modifications to his theory since Joyce's article, but many of her criticisms are still valid.
Bahcall, John N. 2004. Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos. Web article at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/index.html
Brown, Walter T., The Fountains of the Deep, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), p. 23-38.
Brown, Walter T., 2008, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition. Website at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
Castagnoli, Geno, 2009, Email communications. Castagnoli described many ways in which Brown repeatedly threw up road blocks and unfair terms to avoid a debate.
Foley, Jim, 2004, More on Walter Brown's debate offer. Talk-Origins arcive article at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown2.html.
Isaac, Mark, 2003, Claim CA342 (Index of Creationist Claims). Talk Origins website article at: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA342.html
Isaac, Mark, 2004, Claim CF210 (Index of Creationist Claims). Talk Origins website article at: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
Jellison, Gerard, 2009. Wrong and I Can Prove it. Amazon.com review of Walter Brown's book, found at: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Compelling-Evidence-Creation-Flood/dp/1878026097
Kuban, Glen, 1997. Sea-monster or Shark? An Analysis of a Supposed Plesiosaur Carcass Netted in 1977. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, May/June 1997, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 16-28. Web version at: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
Kuban, Glen, 2006. Fossil Tracks and Other Trace Fossils Falsify Flood Geology. Web article at: http://paleo.cc/ce/tracefos.htm
Matson, Dave. 2002. How Good are Those Creationist Arguments? Talk Origins archive article at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof1
Matson, Dave, 1995. Youngearth "proof" #1: The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship to less than 5 million years. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html.
Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam And Eve Toast? Web article at: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm
Meert, Joe, 2006. Walt Brown's Pseudochallenge. Web article at: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm
Morton, Glenn, 2003, Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model. Website article at: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hydroplate.htm.
Plotner, Tammy, 2011. "Did Asteroid Baptistina Kill the Dinosaurs? Think other WISE..." Universe Today.
RationalWiki. 2012. Evidence against a recent creation. Website at: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
Sharp, Christopher, 2005, Walt Brown's Hydroplate Therory. Website essay at: http://www.csharp.com/hydroplate.html
Sheperd, Roy, 2012. Discovering Fossils: Introducing the Paleontology of Great Britian. Website at: http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/dover_kent_fossils.htm
Van Till, Howard. 1986. The Legend of the Shrinking Sun- A Case Study Comparing Professional Science and "Creation Science" in Action. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 38.3:164-174. Web version at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html
The points made in the wiki link section bore the following references:
Condon, D.J.; Prave, A.R., Benn, D.I. (1 January 2002). "Neoproterozoic glacial-rainout intervals: Observations and implications". Geology 30 (1): 35–38.Bibcode 2002Geo....30...35C. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0035:NGRIOA>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
R. Rieu; P.A. Allen; M. Plotze; T. Pettke (2007)."Climatic cycles during a Neoproterozoic "snowball" glacial epoch" (PDF). Geology 35 (4): 299–302.Bibcode 2007Geo....35..299R.doi:10.1130/G23400A.1.
Young, G.M. (1999). "Some aspects of the geochemistry, provenance and palaeoclimatology of the Torridonian of NW Scotland". Journal of the Geological Society 156 (6): 1097–1111.doi:10.1144/gsjgs.156.6.1097.
Crowley, T.J.; Hyde, W.T., Peltier, W.R. (2001). "CO 2 levels required for deglaciation of a 'near-snowball'Earth". Geophys. Res. Lett 28 (2): 283–6.Bibcode 2001GeoRL..28..283C.doi:10.1029/2000GL011836.
Poulsen, C.J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Jacob, R.L. (2001). "Impact of ocean dynamics on the simulation of the Neoproterozoicsnowball Earth". Geophysical Research Letters 28 (8): 1575–8. Bibcode2001GeoRL..28.1575P. doi:10.1029/2000GL012058.
Kennedy, M.J.; Christie-blick, N.; Sohl, L.E. (2001)."Are Proterozoic cap carbonates and isotopic excursions a record of gas hydrate destabilization following Earth's coldest intervals?" (PDF). Geology 29(5): 443–6. Bibcode 2001Geo....29..443K.doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2001)029<0443:APCCAI>2.0.CO;2.
Kirschvink, J.L.; Ripperdan, R.L., Evans, D.A. (25 July 1997). "Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander". Science 277 (5325): 541. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.541. Retrieved 5 May 2007.
Meert, J.G. (1999). "A palaeomagnetic analysis of Cambrian true polar wander" (PDF). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett 168: 131–144. Bibcode 1999E&PSL.168..131M.doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(99)00042-4. Retrieved 6 May 2007.
You had a 1998-era Harvard webpage to back up your claim.
On the contrary to your implication, a lot more money is in the religion con-game. After all, isn't tithing a religious duty? Let's leave alone sin-indulgences of the Catholic Church of yore.
Modern science kicks the jaws of stone-age literature to the curb on a daily basis and that's why even archaic organisations based on it like the aforementioned church in Rome now accept evolution as fact.
Well I do agree with you that global warming is junk science. Altering the data is one thing, predictions [from over 10 years ago] of rising oceans flooding cities just above sea level is another, but the outrageous solution is the most damaging piece of evidence ~ `the ‘need’ to tax the ‘wealthy’ for carbon credits showing just how oblivious the masses are. An obscene amount of money has changed hands in the name of carbon credits.
However, my faith is not a blank check. Anyone with an open mind and willing to research and investigate will find the absolute irrefutable truths listed in the Bible. Archeology that intersects with the Bible is in 100% agreement - something you will not find with any record of past history. Lee Strobel has done some excellent research in this area. There is simply more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than any other figure throughout history. Furthermore, history is littered with former atheists, like Strobel, who have set out to prove all of the christian faith as a hoax and instead have become converts to the Way.
Lastly, following the global flood many local floods did also occur due to the rising of the mountains and the falling of the valleys. There are many things modern science can not explain but they are very deceptive and most times avoid even a simple discussion of same. This is especially true in the areas of long ages [anything > 10,000 years] and evolution. The claims ring hollow and one only apply Occam’s razor to a listing of what we do know with near certainty before delving into what we theorize. Absolute truth will not create the great conflicts and contradictions we now see. And neither will true science. If it conflicts with and directly contradicts the Bible then one should continue researching to find the assumptions and hidden motives [usually the love of money, power, and fame].
Laugh all you want. I have not been deceptive here as I have referenced Walt Brown’s website and research many many times - my posting history will easily reflect this. Furthermore, my FR home and links page also reflect my true beliefs. I did not cut and paste the post you replied too - those were my own words pulled from what I remember from studying and re-visiting Walt’s site. I was not willing to post anything here on the crevo FR debates [lurking since it’s inception in 1997] until I felt I had found irrefutable proof defending the words of the Bible and true science. Learned scholars of integrity and distinction, no matter how few there may currently be, have studied Walt’s research and concluded the same.
It is easy to critique creationscience.com when one mixes assumptions from evolution and old ages for the Earth and Universe in with where the true evidence leads. Problem is most of you modern day ‘scientists’ don’t start from a solid foundation of what we do know from man’s own history before delving into the unknown. Furthermore, history is replete with authority figures, scholars, and scientists who fall for lies and deceptions, leading many other lesser minds astray and ridiculing newly discovered truths b/c they are so threatened by their loss of money, power, and prestige, [their true ambitions rather than true science]. Those solitary figures throughout history who have made the greatest advancements and discoveries were often threatened and discredited initially before enough additional findings revealed the integrity of their work.
In your post #31 you even invoke the pope as some kind of authority figure [when it suits your purposes] but in reality you don’t really think christianity has any lasting truth - DO YOU?!
I am not going to try to argue with you. I only responded to your comment to me to defend my statement to Mr. Bennett and I have done that and your responses to me have proven my point.
Note: this topic is from 9/30/2012.Thanks 2ndDivisionVet. Posted earlier:
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Note: this topic is from 9/30/2012.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.