>I suppose that's not hermeneutics. I should have guessed, since he was
>talking about "context," that he wasn't doing any interpreting. How silly
>of me. How could I have thought you were including an interpretation
>because it seemed to favor your view? How could I have been so dim? Three
>years of law school? Two years at Chippendale's? (You guess which one's the
>fib).
No Jim, it is not a fib. Next time I will cut that quotation off earlier (if
I can remember). All I was interested in was the count. I don't care about
the rest. Believe me or don't. I don't care. I don't want to get into
hermeneutics anyway so lets move on. If you feel this gets you some sort of
debate point, then you have it.
>You can't have it both ways. If you want to throw out hermeneutics, throw
>it out. But give us somethig to replace it. Tell us how to approach
>Scripture so it makes sense. Or maybe it's not supposed to make sense. Are
>you a deconstructionist now?
>
>>No, God doesn't make the lenses. We do. That's called presuppositionalism.
>>And if we make the wrong lenses, we see the wrong things.
>
><<But as I said, if God had thoroughly mixed the fossils up we would have
>no
>excuse for applying the wrong lens. Why do you think God left that as an
>option? Is it because God didn't do what you WANT him to have done?>>
>
>I love the way evolutionists hold God to a human standard. Why wasn't he a
>better engineer? Why didn't he mix the fossils up forus? Might not the
>message be, not deception, but you've got the wrong specs, dude?
Then explain the footprints in a global flood model. I haven't seen anyone
do that yet. All I am asking for is that footprints and other geological
features be accounted for consistently in the global flood model. I ran into
another item that drove the young Steve Austin to proclaim that only the
Paleozoic was flood sediment, it concerns the lack of pillow basalts on the
continents which were supposed to be underwater at the time of the flood.
More later or in another post.
>
>
>>But here's my question. Why are you assuming these tracks had to be left
>>just before the flood?
>
><<I didn't say that. These tracks HAD to be made DURING the flood.>>
>
>How much of this is dependent on a young earth? Are you saying that young
>earth and global flood must always go together?
That is exactly what the function of the global flood is. It functions as an
attempt to explain geology. Without the global flood, one can't have a
young earth because they have no means of explaining footprints and burrows
throughout the entire geologic column.
>
>>Isn't Baumgardner
>>suggesting thermal runaway?
>
><<runaway subduction. His model by the 6 author's own admission would
>create
>too much heat and would fry the earth.>>
>
>Hmm. What he actually says is:
Baumgardner quote snipped (see previous message for it)
>It doesn't sound to me like he thinks it fried the earth. It sounds to me
>like he thinks this is how the Earth got to look the way it does.
Then why don't you read more than just the Baptist newletter or whatever
that quote came from and have a bit of skepticism when something supports
your position? Austin et al write:
"Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood
or post-Flood times, we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean
lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational
potential energy released by this subduction of this lithosphere is
on the order of 10^28 J. this alone probably provided the energy
necessary to drive flood dynamics."~S. Austin, D.R. Humphreys, J.R.
Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman and K. Wise, "Catastrophic
Plate Tectonics," in Robert E. Walsh, ed. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 612
The reference for the 10^28 Joules is to J. R. Baumgardner "Numerical
Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the
Flood, in R. E. Walsh et al, editors,Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation
Science Fellowship, 1987), p. 17-30
In that earlier paper, p. 19, he calculates that the heat generated by his
mechanism:
"Using the values from the preceding section, one finds the energy per unit
volume of lithosphere to be 2.1 x 10^9 J/m^3."
And at the 1994 talk, Humphreys followed by Wise talks about this heat problem:
Humphreys:"We have always said that one of the major problems was the
heat flow what do we do with the excess heat and how do we.... And
Kurt mentioned this. He did both,...thanks to both of you for doing a
great job of explaining all the thoughts. But one of the major
problems was the heat that is left over after all this geologic
activity has gone on. And any model which is going to try to explain
all this geologic activity that we have seen in the short time that
is available to us, and consistent with the evidence that the earth
is young, is going to have the heat problem. But that is one of the
problems and as John alluded to yesterday and I alluded to in my talk
on cosmology, there is a glimmerings of a solution for how to get rid
of that heat in a very unexpected way. That heat would be removed
from the volume of materials For example, are batholiths the same as
plutons? Ok. I've heard them called both things. Vast deep bodies of
rock that have somehow cooled down, and yet they are so big that they
couldn't normally have cooled down in a few thousand years and yet
they are cold now. And so that is a problem that any kind of flood
geology has to face and ours has to face that too. And then John's
upwelling of material from the deep interior, a lot of the heat is
lost as superheated steam goes into the stratosphere and radiates
but not all of it. And so this is a general problem that we still
have to deal with but I dont' think it is just our model that has to
face this model. [someone says something] Yeah The other thing is
radioisotopes and radioactive decay thats another thing that we need
to deal with. My suspicion is that radioactive decay might have had
something to do with the stars. But there are a lot of details that
aren't worked out. Anyone else want to add? Here Kurt you give the
list."
Wise: Those are megaproblems. There are other problems that a lot of
other creation models have. Geologically, reinterpretation of trace
fossils, reinterpretation of geologic formations that are thought to
have been exposed to the surface rather than buried underwater.
Metamorphism, Andrew Snelling has been approaching... Again these are
problems that every geology model tends to have however. The single
ice age prediction from this needs to be re-evaluated. There's
multiple ice advances in the conventional ice ages. That material
needs to be reinterpreted all the ice ages claimed during the
geologic column must be reinterpreted such as the upper Precambrian
one that we discussed in our Preflood/Flood boundary paper but there
are more. There are a number of these. The viscosity is still not
fully resolved in the mantle. The viscosity...observed... inferred
presently inferred viscosity of the mantle is still a bit too high to
allow some of these things we are talking about. How that's resolved.
There is a long list of things that we need to deal with and as I
said in the talk we must be very, I definitely want to say that we
don't have the endall answer to things. We have a large number of
areas that need further work thus ensuring job security for us. At
least within creationism but that doesn't pay an awfully lot."
video tape, 3rd ICC, K. P. Wise, et al, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global
Flood," Tape Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., P. O. Box 99303,
Pittsburgh, PA 15233-4303,
Now for 10-12 years they have known of this problem yet they do not see it
as fatal to their view. If they can't solve the heat problem their model is
a dead!.
>
><<Question: Why do invertebrate tracks continue throughout the entire
>column,
>Amphibians first appear in the Mississippian (in the western US, Devonian
>in
>Europe) and mammals appear last.>>
>
>This sounds like a good question for a uniformitarian to ask a YEC, with
>both operating under naturalistic assumptions.
But that is my point Jim, the YECs in the global flood ARE working from a
naturalistic assumption. They assume the laws of physics were working then.
At least they do until they run into a problem and then they switch to
miracle to solve the problem. The heat problem of Baumgardner et al, is
explained away by Baumgardner with:
"Finally, it seem evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood or
modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in
the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical
necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an enhanced
rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy
afterward. Although many scientists do not readily entertain such
possibilities, Scripture indicates that God has indeed on rare occasions
intervened in the laws of nature on a grand scale."J. R. Baumgardner "Numerical
Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the
Flood, in R. E. Walsh et al, editors,Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation
Science Fellowship, 1987), p. 17-30, p. 24
I have no problem with God doing the flood miraculously. But what is the
point of modeling things if God must then solve the problems your model
can't answer? Why wouldn't it just be simpler to say God did it, rather
than presume that John Baumgardner has found the method by which God has
moved the continents? Why couldn't God simply move the continents without
any runaway subduction? No muss no fuss.
>And I don't know what an
>answer would be. But I guess the question I would pose is this: Let's
>assume the flood waters abated miraculously, and that God did not arrange
>the fossils in any way. Just took the water and dried the earth in a
>fashion unlike anything we observe. (I would also allow for more time than
>a classic YEC). Question: would it be impossible for the record to look
>like it does?
I think so, unless you want footprints to be deposited by the flood without
any feet having made them.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm