Geology

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I told you one mechanism of dating, read my post again. That is the clock. If a tree is burned the information telling us of the age of the tree is gone. If a rock erodes the information contained within likewise dissapears.

This is not scientific support for anything. So you are saying that when rocks erode, something happens to the redioactive isotopes in that sediment?

To say that this clock BS has any accuracy you are now telling me you need to know how many times a rock has eroded, and what processes it has gone through in order to tell me the age?

This isn't a cogent explanation of the validity of aging processes. Clearly the process cannot tell you the age, because you don't know what processes have occoured. I guess you are saying that the isotopes leak back in when it erodes.

Please explain this process further

No errosion destroys the information within, please try reading more carefully. A rock when formed may contain organic material. This material once locked in the rock will no longer accumulate carbon. At that point the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 begins to change in relation to the atmospheric ratio. The rate of carbon 14 decay allows us to determine the age of the material and the surrounding rock.

[gritty]

My friend does not have a Web site, as yet. However he gave a few suggestion.
Like this following article:
Where did the waters go?

The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God's command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5—6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8—11, note 'waves'). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth's topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.
A mechanism?

The catastrophic plate tectonics model (What about continental drift?) gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially towards the end of the Flood.
Could the water have covered Mount Everest?

Mt Everest is almost 9 km (5.5 miles) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered 'all the high hills under the whole heaven'?

The Bible refers only to 'high hills,' and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

Receding floodwaters eroded the land, creating river valleys. This explains why rivers are often so much smaller than the valleys they flow in today—they did not carve the valleys. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous Flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

Bgood:
I hope this answers some of your questions

griity

[Kurieuo]

While I see no solid evidence of old earth, and good records of young earth (Geneological records from Adam and Eve, and God said He made them) I will continue to beleive my position, until I am convinced by some adequate evidence that this is not so.

If interested in just having a peak at the position I align myself with, there is a good slideshow at http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/presentations.php (scroll down to the "In the Beginning" one).

So while I will for the time at least leave the issue alone, I would wonder what your opinion is that God said In Genises chapter 2 that He created the heavens and the earth and all of the host that is in them, The spirit that moved across the face of the deep,

Chapter 1 you mean? But yes, I believe God created the universe.

the same spirit that descended and stayed with Jesus said in The Gospel of John that He made all things, in the begining, and that there was nothing that was made without Him.

I think it important to realise (as you had done) that the context is set at the beginning of creation. Thus, I do entirely agree that Christ was involved in the creation of all things created in the beginning. Infact I also believe God created "death", and thus I hold to this moreso. That again is another issue.

This is the same God that says that it repented him that He had created the earth, and that He would kill everything that He made that walked on the ground. This accoutn goes on to tell of a flood that covered the land, and that the flood did in fact kill all the things God said he would destroy.

I believe mankind were all essentially within the one area, and that it was this area that was flooded. As a follow on, the only animals that would have then required cleansing from the earth were those which had come into contact with humanity.

Also I wonder what you do with all the evidence for a global flood. How do you put ocean basins on mountians?

My response would simply be that many mountains were once at sea level, but plate tectonics, wind erosion and deposits, volcanic activity, and other environmental factors eventually raised them into mountains. There is a page that runs through a lot of the evidences produced for a young earth and global flood scenario that you may want to take a look at (see http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html). In relation to this question of marine fossils on mountaintops it responds:

Due to the uplift of mountains through Plate Tectonics, many surfaces that are currently several thousand feet in altitude were once near sea level. Tectonic forces are easily powerful enough to accomplish this over millions of years. Therefore, the detection of marine fossils at such high altitudes is no great surprise, and does not necessarily provide evidence for global flood.

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

My friend does not have a Web site, as yet. However he gave a few suggestion.
Like this following article:
Where did the waters go?

The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God's command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5—6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8—11, note 'waves'). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth's topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.
A mechanism?

The catastrophic plate tectonics model (What about continental drift?) gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially towards the end of the Flood.
Could the water have covered Mount Everest?

Mt Everest is almost 9 km (5.5 miles) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered 'all the high hills under the whole heaven'?

The Bible refers only to 'high hills,' and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

Receding floodwaters eroded the land, creating river valleys. This explains why rivers are often so much smaller than the valleys they flow in today—they did not carve the valleys. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous Flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

Bgood:
I hope this answers some of your questions

griity

This is well written and has some good points. It points to evidence of catastrophic flooding, which is very plausible. However there are also places where catastrophic flooding does not explain deposits.

Localized flooding probably occurred however in some areas there is no evidence of flooding. Also these flood events do not necessarily have to have occured simultaneously.

However the wide flood plains of rivers can also be explained by several phenomenon.
Rivers cutting valleys.
Rivers changing course.
Glacial errosion.

Rivers which cut valleys originally did not have wide flood plains. The theory goes that the river cut rocky valleys and caused the formation of a very deep gorge carrying away the sedimentation. As the gorge gets deeper the rivers speed slows down. At the same time erosion weathers away the peaks to either side. The slowdown of the river causes sedimentation to begin accumulating, and over time the river valley flattens out.


Rivers on open plains tend to change course due to build up of sedimentation and these rivers can have very wide flood basins. Erosion along the banks of rivers over time would lead to a widening of the flood plain and an unpredictability of the rivers course.
Mississipi River.


Other flood plains can be explained by recent glacial events.
Yosemite Valley
[/img]

[BGoodForGoodSake]

While I see no solid evidence of old earth, and good records of young earth (Geneological records from Adam and Eve, and God said He made them) I will continue to beleive my position, until I am convinced by some adequate evidence that this is not so.

If interested in just having a peak at the position I align myself with, there is a good slideshow at http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/presentations.php (scroll down to the "In the Beginning" one).

So while I will for the time at least leave the issue alone, I would wonder what your opinion is that God said In Genises chapter 2 that He created the heavens and the earth and all of the host that is in them, The spirit that moved across the face of the deep,

Chapter 1 you mean? But yes, I believe God created the universe.

the same spirit that descended and stayed with Jesus said in The Gospel of John that He made all things, in the begining, and that there was nothing that was made without Him.

I think it important to realise (as you had done) that the context is set at the beginning of creation. Thus, I do entirely agree that Christ was involved in the creation of all things created in the beginning. Infact I also believe God created "death", and thus I hold to this moreso. That again is another issue.

This is the same God that says that it repented him that He had created the earth, and that He would kill everything that He made that walked on the ground. This accoutn goes on to tell of a flood that covered the land, and that the flood did in fact kill all the things God said he would destroy.

I believe mankind were all essentially within the one area, and that it was this area that was flooded. As a follow on, the only animals that would have then required cleansing from the earth were those which had come into contact with humanity.

Also I wonder what you do with all the evidence for a global flood. How do you put ocean basins on mountians?

My response would simply be that many mountains were once at sea level, but plate tectonics, wind erosion and deposits, volcanic activity, and other environmental factors eventually raised them into mountains. There is a page that runs through a lot of the evidences produced for a young earth and global flood scenario that you may want to take a look at (see http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html). In relation to this question of marine fossils on mountaintops it responds:

Due to the uplift of mountains through Plate Tectonics, many surfaces that are currently several thousand feet in altitude were once near sea level. Tectonic forces are easily powerful enough to accomplish this over millions of years. Therefore, the detection of marine fossils at such high altitudes is no great surprise, and does not necessarily provide evidence for global flood.

Kurieuo

After reading the article I must say it is very well written. Altho I am not a christian as a scientist Ionly have very minor problems with it. It even states that the Bible is by no means a complete account, I would also like to add that science is likewise an incomplete account.

[Kurieuo]

After reading the article I must say it is very well written. Altho I am not a christian as a scientist Ionly have very minor problems with it. It even states that the Bible is by no means a complete account, I would also like to add that science is likewise an incomplete account.

Are you referring to the slideshow presentation?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

After reading the article I must say it is very well written. Altho I am not a christian as a scientist Ionly have very minor problems with it. It even states that the Bible is by no means a complete account, I would also like to add that science is likewise an incomplete account.

Are you referring to the slideshow presentation?

No the article entitled "In the beginning" http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts ... inning.php

[Kurieuo]

After reading the article I must say it is very well written. Altho I am not a christian as a scientist Ionly have very minor problems with it. It even states that the Bible is by no means a complete account, I would also like to add that science is likewise an incomplete account.

Are you referring to the slideshow presentation?

No the article entitled "In the beginning" http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts ... inning.php

Ahh... I didn't see that link off, but it provides an accounting similar to what many Day-Age advocates would accept. I'm glad you took the time to take a look, and were even intrigued by it. Perhaps this means you also haven't read the accounting on the GodandScience.org website—Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation, or the more recent and perhaps more readable The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account. While Scripture, specifically Genesis, is by no means a complete or even scientific account, I believe it can clearly be harmonised with modern science while taking its words in a very serious and literal manner. I was personally left in awe when I first read such accountings.

Kurieuo

[Byblos]

After reading the article I must say it is very well written. Altho I am not a christian as a scientist Ionly have very minor problems with it. It even states that the Bible is by no means a complete account, I would also like to add that science is likewise an incomplete account.

Are you referring to the slideshow presentation?

No the article entitled "In the beginning" http://swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts ... inning.php

Ahh... I didn't see that link off, but it provides an accounting similar to what many Day-Age advocates would accept. I'm glad you took the time to take a look, and were even intrigued by it. Perhaps this means you also haven't read the accounting on the GodandScience.org website—Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation, or the more recent and perhaps more readable The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account. While Scripture, specifically Genesis, is by no means a complete or even scientific account, I believe it can clearly be harmonised with modern science while taking its words in a very serious and literal manner. I was personally left in awe when I first read such accountings.

Kurieuo

Those very same articles are the reason I chose to become a member.

[August]

My friend does not have a Web site, as yet. However he gave a few suggestion.
Like this following article:
Where did the waters go?

The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters, and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God's command (Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5—6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8—11, note 'waves'). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth's topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). We need to remember that about 70% of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.
A mechanism?

The catastrophic plate tectonics model (What about continental drift?) gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the Flood.

As the new ocean floors cooled, they would have become denser and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land.

The collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, especially towards the end of the Flood.
Could the water have covered Mount Everest?

Mt Everest is almost 9 km (5.5 miles) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered 'all the high hills under the whole heaven'?

The Bible refers only to 'high hills,' and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

Thus it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the USA. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (The Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

Receding floodwaters eroded the land, creating river valleys. This explains why rivers are often so much smaller than the valleys they flow in today—they did not carve the valleys. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous Flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's Flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.
Noah's Flood—what about all that water?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

Bgood:
I hope this answers some of your questions

griity

I have a question. If as specified above the flood waters covered the whole earth, the receding flood waters created the geology of the earth as we know it today with continents, islands and oceans, and all living things were on board with Noah and the ark, which came to rest only after the flood waters had receded, and thus created this earth geology, how did the living creatures get from there to the rest of the world? How did they get to Australia, for example, or any of the islands?

[Jbuza]

I have a question. If as specified above the flood waters covered the whole earth, the receding flood waters created the geology of the earth as we know it today with continents, islands and oceans, and all living things were on board with Noah and the ark, which came to rest only after the flood waters had receded, and thus created this earth geology, how did the living creatures get from there to the rest of the world? How did they get to Australia, for example, or any of the islands?

This lends evidence to the interpretation that the earth did in fact divide in the days of peleg. IT seems clear from evidence that the land was once together. Many theories have been devized for the appearnce that all land once fit together. It is not neccesary to assume that all geological activity occoured during the year of the flood, nor is it reasonable to, alhtough it seems apparent form the evidence that the flood was causal in changing the topography.

[August]

This lends evidence to the interpretation that the earth did in fact divide in the days of peleg. IT seems clear from evidence that the land was once together. Many theories have been devized for the appearnce that all land once fit together. It is not neccesary to assume that all geological activity occoured during the year of the flood, nor is it reasonable to, alhtough it seems apparent form the evidence that the flood was causal in changing the topography.

I was commenting on the article that seemes to state that. Also, it still then in the context of a global flood answer the question.