Evidence for God from Science

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

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

Excellent point.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Wow so what do you read 100,000 + words an hour?

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.

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.

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.

Jbuza wrote:

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.

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.

Apparently you know how long it took. Are you now renegging and saying you don't know how long it took?

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: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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

Of course, like landlocked salmon, simple adaptations.

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.

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.

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?

The continents were together.

How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?

Hopped? Again, the continents were close together.

dad wrote:

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.

Adaptability is natural selection, complimentary terminology.

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?

Of course, like landlocked salmon, simple adaptations.

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.

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.

There is zero evidence to support any claim of that nature.

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?

The continents were together.

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.

How did kangaroos get to the ark? And why did they make it back to Australia and camels did not?

Hopped? Again, the continents were close together.

That is summarily unsubstantiated tripe.

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 http://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.
---------------------
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.

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.
---------------------
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.
---------------------
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.
------------------------

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.

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
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.

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.
Paleomagnetic Studies
Topology
Radiometric Dating
Geophysical Evidence (vague from the newspaper article)

Your claim?? is based on what?
---------------------

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.

Again the rates you require are 120 times faster than the accelerated speed proposed in the past.

These past speeds are already 20-40 times faster than todays rates.
Also the hypothesis is that a magnetic shift occurred. Something you do not support. yet you use these articles as support for unheard of tectonic activity.

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.
------------------------

Are you certain of this?
Are you sure it is not erosion which caused some features to fade over time?

The average depth of the Atlantic Ocean is 2500m shallower than the pacific.

There is a field called material physics which models the behaviour of rocks. Taken together with geophysics we can model what would occur if such fissures as you require did indeed occur 6000 years ago.

Why a gradual slope?

done don't care.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

Catastrophic flooding : the origin of the Channeled Scabland / edited by Victor R. Baker Stroudsburg, Pa. : Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross ; [New York] : distributed by Academic Press, c1981

Cataclysms on the Columbia : a layman's guide to the features produced by the catastrophic Bretz floods in the Pacific Northwest / by John Eliot Allen, Marjorie Burns, and Sam C. Sargent, Portland, Or. : Timber Press, c1986

Four feet per day? Moving continents at that rate, would produce enough heat to cook all the fish in the sea. That energy would have to come from somewhere, and then friction would produce incredible amounts of heat.

No, that one can't be right.

Mastriani wrote: That is summarily unsubstantiated tripe.

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.

I have had to take a bit off from this topic because I was getting frustrated by claims that every observation is evidence for a paticular interpretation, and seemingly searching for another ocean or different observations for alternative interpretations.

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.

There is more than one mechanism and theory to explain movement of continents.

Clearly pangea broke aparts from some massive force. Asteroid impacts on other planets don't seem to have fractured the crust like what we see on earth, so I don't accept impact powered contintal fracture and drift.

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. Shoreline erosion is a very big problem and oceans could grow by this mechanism.

Post more thoughts later

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.

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!?
"The ancient ancestors of the 37 species alive today migrated across the globe, eventually settling in all continents except Antarctica, say scientists.

Eight major lineages emerged, including lions, ocelots and domestic cats. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4585766.stm

There is more than one mechanism and theory to explain movement of continents.

Yes, but heat is a problem for all of them that hypothesize a physical only world like the present.

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.

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!