Scientific data is not a case of grocery store interpretation. By that I
mean, chose any brand of interpretation you want. The limitations on the
interpretation of scientific data are that the interpretation must be
consistent with other data. A case in point. Magma brings lots of
sulfuric acid and CO2 to the surface and releases said noxious chemicals
into the oceans and atmosphere. How can you explain the scientific
observation with the global flood requirement that all the volcanic rocks
be deposited during the flood year and with the Biblical requirement that
Noah live? that is the sort of problem I would like to see a global flood
advocate explain.
No the data is not supportive of a young-earth scenario. Unless a
young-earth scenario involves the gassing of the fish or killing the
earth's shell fish with acid. I don't see how on earth you can say what I
wrote is supportive of the young-earth scenario.
>
>
>>Well this is an argument that goes both ways. Christians were the >ones
who killed each other in Northern Ireland. Christians were the >ones who
killed people for having a slightly different theological >view. (both
Catholic and Protestant killed those they viewed as >heretics) I would
think that a better way to view the situation is that >men, all men,
including Christians and you and I, are capable of very >evil sin.
>
>I quite agree with your concluding line. However, whilst Christians have
>little excuse for departing from the Lord's teachings and carrying out
>the horrors you mention, I suggest that evolutionists - if they so
>desire - have the backing of a completely different teaching.
But I would suggest that they are no more nor less likely to engage in
murder, theivery, rape or whatever. Here in Dallas we had a preacher who
was arrested for a series of rapes, and we have also had atheists arrested
for the same crimes. I have been in two churches where the pastors
committed adultery and eventually left the ministry. I would suggest that
you simply can't use the "Thank you Lord that we Christians are not like
other men" line to argue against evolution. Unfortunately, we christians
are too much like other men.
>
>> I am a geoscientist. Can you tell me specifically and in detail how
>you think geology can be interpreted in other ways? It was geology >that
forced me to change from a young-earth, global flood advocate, to >what I
now believe.
>
>Before moving into a career in mathematics and computing I was a mining
>engineer. I therefore have some knowledge of geology and hydraulics. It
>seems to me that the arguments presented by Morris and Whitcomb in 'The
>Genesis Flood' cannot be lightly dismissed. Presumably you will agree
>that fossilisation is generally to be associated with catastrophic
>events, and Noah's flood seems to fit the bill. Clearly, we don't have
>all the answers; but isn't that also true of the evolutionist?
No. I don't agree at all. The requirement of rapid fossilization is another
example of a myth perpetrated by young-earth creatinists in total disregard
of the observational data.
Amboseli Park in Kenya gives an excellent example of modern day
fossilization occurring in a modern terrestrial environment. Anna K.
Berhrensmeyer studied the taphonomy (what happens after death) of bones on
the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro. They walked transects making observations of
all the bones in the ground that they could find. How long could the bones
last on the surface of the earth? Is rapid, meaning instantaneous burial
required? Behrensmeyer states,
"The total sample consisted of over 20,000 bones representing
more than 1,500 individuals. These represent attritional
mortality over a period of 8 to 15 years maximum; most bones are
destroyed by surface processes or buried within this period of
time."~Anna K. Behrensmeyer, "Vertebrate Paleoecology in a Recent
East African Ecosystem," in Jane Gray, A. J. Boucot and William
B. N. Berry, editors, Communities of the Past, (Stroudsburg:
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1991), pp 591-615, p. 596
Eight years is quite a long time compared to the timeframe normally given
by young earth creationists. Why are these bones able to last that long?
She writes
"Bone weathering on the surface varies according to
microhabitat; critical factors include fluctuations in
temperature and moisture. Bones in moist or shaded places may
stay uncracked for years while exposed parts of the same skeleton
go through progressive weathering stages and usually disintegrate
entirely in 8 to 15 years. Weathering is inhibited by burial in
Amboseli, and burial to a large extent is caused by trampling,
especially during periods when the ground is wet. In most cases
lower sides of bones are less weathered than upper, but kicking
and trampling also has the effect of turning bones over
periodically, so they weather evenly on both sides. Trampled
bones are often oriented nearly vertically in the surface
sediment. Compact bones, such as podials, seem to have relatively
higher rates of burial and lower rates of weathering than skulls,
pelves, and vertebrae."~Anna K. Behrensmeyer, "Vertebrate
Paleoecology in a Recent East African Ecosystem," in Jane Gray,
A. J. Boucot and William B. N. Berry, editors, Communities of the
Past, (Stroudsburg: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1991), pp
591-615, p. 606
But more importantly, the chemistry of the soils is the main factor.
"Soils of the Amboseli Basin are generally alkaline and
conducive to bone preservation, and bones occur in all stages of
fossilization, unmineralized to completely mineralized. Fossil
bones probably vary from Holocene to Pleistocene in age, but none
have yet been dated."~Anna K. Behrensmeyer, "Vertebrate Paleoecology in a
Recent East African Ecosystem," in Jane Gray, A. J. Boucot and William
B. N. Berry, editors, Communities of the Past, (Stroudsburg:
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 1991), pp 591-615, p. 596
Rapid burial of bones in not required for fossilization, unless one says
that 8 years is a rapid time.
Now for subaqueous fossilization. Some glacial lakes preserve an organic
rich goo on their bottom. (Alan R. Emery, "Sediments of Deep Canadian
Shield Lakes: Observations of Gross Structure and Biological Significance,"
Science, 181, p. 655-657)
But there are fossils that have been formed in the last few thousand years
in the ocean. This has been known for over 45 years but apparently not by
young-earth creationists. L. G. Weeks reports on the occurrence of
fossilized fish in concretions formed during the past few thousand years,
"Among the most interesting occurrences of fish-bearing
concretions are those that are being found in Recent or sub-
Recent marine clays in various places along the coasts of
Greenland and northern Canada. Figure 5 shows one of these
specimens from the American Museum which Dr. Scaeffer kindly
permitted the writer to have photographed. The concretions occur
in marine clays which apparently were raised above sea level by
the isostatic rebound that followed the melting of the
Pleistocene ice cap. The fact that concretions have already been
developed in these very young clays seems significant."~L. G.
Weeks, "Environment and Mode of Origin and Facies Relationships
of Carbonate Concretions in Shales," Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, 23(1953):3:162-173, p. 168
So, for those who want examples of modern fossilization, here they are.
>
>> Jesus said NOTHING about evolution.
>
>No. And he did say something about the flood, and about believing the
>words of Moses! Are not these very good reasons for adopting a 'young
>earth' position.
NO. They are good reasons for believing in the Flood, but that is not
reason enough to believe in the Global flood. Jesus didn't say anything
about a Global flood. Show me the verse!!! You are adding to the Bible.
>
>> Tell me exactly where you thing the Bible clearly states that the
>Flood was universal. I would agree that it holds to an >anthropologically
universal flood, but not a physically or globally >universal flood.
>
>You split hairs with adverbs like 'anthropologically' and 'globally'.
>Why should you assume that man's activities were confined to the Near
>East during the Antediluvian Period? The many flood traditions surely
>take us much further afield! And why do you choose to interpret the term
>'...all flesh...' (Gen.6:13,17) in human terms? Wouldn't you suppose
>animal life to have embraced the planet during that time?
I believe that the Bible says that all flesh on the LAND was destroyed.
The Hebrew word translated 'earth' (eretz), means LAND, not planet earth.
Thus I can believe that all the animals on the LAND were destroyed but no
all the animals on planet earth. This is using the best and most common
meaning of eretz.
>
>In my view, it is difficult to dismiss the flood narrative as allegory,
>or as referring to a local inundation. On the contrary, it is real life
>drama, and speaks clearly of a world event! Most significantly, the
>words of Jesus and of Peter (a close companion for three years) confirm
>it as real history.
I agree that it is a real life event and not allegory. But once again you
can't equate allegory to a real life local flood. That is illogical.
>
>>...there are no Baal worshippers today.
>
>I wouldn't be too sure about that! Paganism is still very much alive,
>and flourishing. However, it was my intention to use the term 'Baal' in
>a general sense to describe what man worships when he denies his
>Creator. I suppose that 'Mother Nature' - to whom many miracles are
>attributed by evolutionists - could have been used instead.
>
>In this connection, Henry Morris has written an informative book, The
>Long War Against God. It is well worth reading.
I have read it. Henry writes:
"In fact, if the Christian church had taken a stronger stand, especially in
England and North America, it is doubtful if Darwinism would ever have
triumphed as it has, even among scientists." ~ Henry M. Morris, The Long
War Against God," (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1989), p. 96
Which displays a lack of knowledge of history. The church took an
extremely strong stand against evolution yet provided NO workable
alternative scenarios to explain the data. I would paraphrase Henry. If
the Christian church had taken the pains to explain the data we wouldn't
have the creation/evolution debate we have today.
>
>Vernon
>
>
>
>
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm