Excellent point.joshutup wrote:Something that's interesting to note is that up until relatively recently, geologists all thought that the rock formations in the American Northwest took millions of years to form. However, it was discovered that they were all actually formed in a very short period of time due to a massive glacier lake giving way.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/
I'm not necessarily saying that something like this caused the flood. After all, I'm pretty sure the Bible says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. However, it does make the point that some things that we may think took a long time may not have, as we don't actually know near as much about science and geology as we'd like to think
Yes I particularly enjoyed the last article. MY intent was to show that sea floor spreading hasn't been uniform and it is silly to say that based on the rate we see today we know how long it took the continents to drift to their present locations.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I am a very fast reader.Jbuza wrote:Wow so what do you read 100,000 + words an hour?
Read the articles yourself, tell me where I erred.
Was that your intent to overwhelm with material?
P.S. That last link was a very long article mostly dealing with formations on land, therefore I only needed to skim to the section on Plate Techtonics.
I answered your critiques, you have yet to answer yours.
Apparently you know how long it took. Are you now renegging and saying you don't know how long it took?Jbuza wrote:Yes I particularly enjoyed the last article. MY intent was to show that sea floor spreading hasn't been uniform and it is silly to say that based on the rate we see today we know how long it took the continents to drift to their present locations.BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I am a very fast reader.
Read the articles yourself, tell me where I erred.
Was that your intent to overwhelm with material?
P.S. That last link was a very long article mostly dealing with formations on land, therefore I only needed to skim to the section on Plate Techtonics.
I answered your critiques, you have yet to answer yours.
No that is not what I am saying.Jbuza wrote:Are you saying that I haven't answered your claim that the topography of the sea floor shows it was a slow process?
OK then. No it doesn't. There.
Hopped? Again, the continents were close together.Adaptability.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:African chiclids can tolerate high Ph levels, something which could not exist during the flood. Is their tolerance and seeming dependance be a result of natural selection?Of course, like landlocked salmon, simple adaptations.In other words is it possible that a population of fish found themselves trapped in a lake in which the Ph levels rose gradually forcing it's inhabitants to adapt for perish over several generations?
I say things all started out in Eden, and the fossil record is one of the migration. If some things didn't make it there yet, that is why.Also why are there no sloths outside of South America?
Ths Fossils in the older layers of South America also contains no horses, elephants, or carnivores.
The continents were together.Yet they do contain ancient sloths.
Did sloths travel 18905 km by foot to the middle east get on the ark and then return to South America?
How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?
That is summarily unsubstantiated tripe.dad wrote:Adaptability.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:African chiclids can tolerate high Ph levels, something which could not exist during the flood. Is their tolerance and seeming dependance be a result of natural selection?
Adaptability is natural selection, complimentary terminology.
Of course, like landlocked salmon, simple adaptations.In other words is it possible that a population of fish found themselves trapped in a lake in which the Ph levels rose gradually forcing it's inhabitants to adapt for perish over several generations?
I say things all started out in Eden, and the fossil record is one of the migration. If some things didn't make it there yet, that is why.Also why are there no sloths outside of South America?
Ths Fossils in the older layers of South America also contains no horses, elephants, or carnivores.
There is zero evidence to support any claim of that nature.
The continents were together.Yet they do contain ancient sloths.
Did sloths travel 18905 km by foot to the middle east get on the ark and then return to South America?
At the proposed time of the flood, no they were not, geological records are clear on that issue. It should also be noted that the story of the flood was recorded in Mesopotamian triform tablets a minimum of 800 - 1200 years earlier, prior to the story in the Bible. The tablet still exists today.
Hopped? Again, the continents were close together.How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?
No one was claiming that it was a uniform process. What was being expressed was incredulity at the rates necessary for the Atlantic Ocean to form in 6000 years.Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Apparently you know how long it took. Are you now renegging and saying you don't know how long it took?
Yes I know how long it took because I was still reading the 20,000+ word //www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html article when barely a half hour had passed and you had re-posted refuting everything in all four articles another of which was 15,000+. But since I now know that you just skimmed the articles for information about ocean topography I am less confused about that particular issue. I have made no claims about ocean topography as yet, so I was not posting information on that, but trying to demonstrate that ocean spreading isn't a uniform process necessarily.
Again no one claimed that it was uniform. If you refer back to the articles, the conclusions that plate movement was accelerated during specific periods was based on the following.Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
The articles show that seafloor rates were high during certain periods in the Earth's history, However they are not refering to the Atlantic seafloor basin which formed after the period discussed in the articles.
Read what you posted.Jbuza wrote: They demonstrate that we cannot know how long it took the seafloor to spread based upon today's measurement. IT is generally accepted that there is variation. I was refuting that it was entirely uniform, that is all.
Paleomagnetic Studies Topology Radiometric Dating Geophysical Evidence (vague from the newspaper article)Again the rates you require are 120 times faster than the accelerated speed proposed in the past.Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
No that is not what I am saying.
You are claiming that the Atlantic Ocean formed after the flood.
That gives it 6000 years to open up 3000km.
Compare the rates discussed in your supporting articles with the rates you require and they are very very slow.
IT is true two of the articles I posted still suggest a slower rate than I hypothesize, but a faster rate than what is observed today, and that was the point I was making.
Are you certain of this?Jbuza wrote:---------------------
Bgood wrote
For this to occur we would need movement rates in excess of 500m per year. Thats 12,000% faster than what was theorized in the articles!!
This would cause annual quakes greater than that which caused the Tsunami last year. What indications do you have to show that this was indeed the case!
The topography of the ocean floor shows an area either side of the ridge that appears similar. Beyond these areas the topography of the ocean floor is quite different indicating that it was formed by a different process than the process that created the middle part of the ocean.
------------------------
That's an average of 4 feet per day. It is ironic to see people who believe in a young earth and a recent flood resort to postulating rates of geologic (continental) and evolutionary (development of modern species from ark kinds) change orders of magnitude faster than anything mainstream scientists suggest.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:For this to occur we would need movement rates in excess of 500m per year. Thats 12,000% faster than what was theorized in the articles!!
This was due to a combination of backlash against catastrophism and a lack of personal examination of the areas by many of the doubters. [It is not so much that some people believed the formations took millions of years as much as that they didn't things could happen quickly and so didn't bother to look at the evidence.] I have not seen the TV show but there are several good books on the 40 or so floods 12,800 to 15,000 years ago which inundated 16,000 square miles with up to hundreds of feet of water. This is a great story of of J Harlen Bretz's persistence for over forty years to convince the scientific community of his ideas.joshutup wrote:Something that's interesting to note is that up until relatively recently, geologists all thought that the rock formations in the American Northwest took millions of years to form. However, it was discovered that they were all actually formed in a very short period of time due to a massive glacier lake giving way.
No, it is substantiated by the bible, and in accordance with science and the evidence. The past old agers preach, however, is not substantiated by anything, least of all science! No evidence exists for such a fantasy past, except in the minds of believers.Mastriani wrote: That is summarily unsubstantiated tripe.
No, from that aspect, I think it's OK. I accept some fast adaptations of creation, because it seems there is evidence for some evolving or adapting. For example the recent article that all cats came from the one ancestor! Why not have just the one ancestor on the ark!?Jbuza wrote: If we cannot explain it or understand it, it must not be. I for one see no need, given the size of the ark to suppose any evolutionary growth of specias at all.
Yes, but heat is a problem for all of them that hypothesize a physical only world like the present.There is more than one mechanism and theory to explain movement of continents.
AS Walt Brown pointed out, a better fit exists when we look at the mid ocean ridges as the starting point, rather than the continents fitting with each other. Where I differ with him is that he envisioned the seperation as a result of the water coming up, and reducing the friction of the sliding. I feel that the merged past better explains this, because how much friction does merged matter have? What properties that changed at the atomic level may have caused some ease of sliding? We don't really know, but we do know some materials take on superconductive properties, and strange properties under extreme conditions right here and now. Imagine in the merged world!It seems clear that some contintal drift is caused by oceaninc ridges, ocean topography shows this. Splitting apart of pangea would have had an unknown effect, and the instabilty caused by the proposed flood is an unknown.