Hydroplate Theory

Why not? Could not a global flood, with rising and falling tides as the waters rose, create fossilized stratification?

There are links to a lot of related videos on this page:
Age of the Earth - Bible Research Tools

Rev

 

No. The flood lasted about a year. One year cannot explain fossils in all layers.

 

I have heard many scientists say it is not only possible, but the only probably cause of widespread fossilized stratification, not to mention the existence of polystrate fossils.

Check out the playlist by the geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling on the link I previously posted.

Dan

 

Did these scientists tell you that the flood caused every layer in the geologic column from the Precambrian to the Quaternary?

 

According to those and other scientists, the great worldwide flood was the cause of all fossilized strata. This is a playlist of another another geologist, not on that page, who teaches along those lines:

Geology - Steve Austin - YouTube

Can I assume you do not believe the Genesis narrative?

Dan

 

That is a problem. Think of the 6000 years or whatever since creation. Why blame all the layers and fossils on one little year? Not a strong argument. There are too many compelling arguments against this.

No, I totally believe it. But the fast growing trees, 1000 year life spans, and angels marrying women on earth, and the coming and going of the flood waters, order of creation as opposed to the fossil record...I think are better explained by a different nature in the past. That means the present is not the key to the past. That means we cannot use the evolving/tree growth rate/decay/continental drift rate/etc etc of TODAY to model the past was like. In the same way we cannot use today's laws to tell us what the millennium will be like.
My position is that the laws of today were not here since Adam, but only sine probably the days of Peleg after the flood. The nature of today is temporary. It will change (by God of course) again in the future. The 1000 year reign of Christ on earth sounds a lot like the pre flood days. Science has used only the present to model the future and far past. Therein, I contend is why the bible was right all along, and science was wrong!

Everything becomes easy to explain this way. Who says most animals could even leave fossilized remains in that different former nature? That means that the absence of man and most animals in the fossil record does not mean they were not here and alive! That means great heat need not have been produced by the rapid continental separation! That means the adapting/evolving of animals off the ark could have been lightning fast. Etc etc.

 

I cannot think of any arguments in support of world-wide, fossilized strata any stronger than a global flood. Perhaps you will enlighten us?

The last sentence we agree on. So, why do you dismiss 1000 year life spans, angels marrying women on earth, and the coming and going of the flood waters with the tides?

I agree.

Maybe, maybe not.

I agree that the Bible (the Word of God) is always right.

The process of fossilization is scientifically well-established. Your second sentence is "begging the question".

Men were here from the beginning -- from the first week of creation. The small number of fossilized people has been the subject of much debate. A friend wrote an article on that subject:

Why Does The Fossil Record Contain So Many Extinct Species? - Bible Research Tools

I suppose.

Rev

 

How about animals dying since Adam's time, spanning many different layers?

I don't. I dismiss them happening now in this current nature. When they happened I assume nature was different. They did and could (and will again in the future) happen in a different nature.

No. It is not. Not for the far past! The simply use modern laws and nature to see how things would NOW fossilize in this nature. Most fossils were laid down in the former nature.

My opinion is that all fossils of man and modern animals are post flood. I do not think lions or man or etc etc could leave fossilized remains in the former nature.

Remember God said from dust Adam came and to dust (not to a fossil) would he return,

 

I am not certain what you are talking about. Animals die all the time, but rarely do conditions exist for fossilization. Regarding the layers, sedimentary geologists have demonstrated that flooding results in multiple stratified layers. One way to tell if the layers were deposited from the same flood, or by recent flooding, is the absence of erosion between the strata, such as that in the Grand Canyon.

I am not following you.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports that assumption.

Not even "to bones"?

Rev

 

I am talking about a different nature that disposes of remains too fast for fossilization to be able to occur for most types of creatures.

As for having no apparent erosion between them, that is fine. So what? That doesn't mean they were laid down in one year.

There is no evidence for a same nature in the past. Believe what you like.

Apparently not. I don't see man and most animals in lower layers. Yet they were here. Explain?

 

Dr. Carl Werner claims he discovered fossils of every major animal and plant group were collected along side dinosaurs, and then relegated to the dusty basements of Dino museums. Navigate to the 8:43 mark of this video to hear the major part of the narrative:



If "scientists" have been hiding those fossils, what else are they hiding?

Rev

 

Where can I find an "earthly" 1000 year reign of Christ in the scripture?

Rev

 

Snelling and Brown tend to complement each other. Scientist Michael Oard has some serious reservations with Brown's theory:

Hydroplate theory - creation.com

However, from an engineering perspective, Brown's theory is plausible. Whatever the case, playlists of lectures and interviews for all three are found on this page:

Age of the Earth - Bible Research Tools

Rev

 

Just after the bit where His feet land on the mount of Olives, and He judges the nations I guess.

 

While it is true that any religion tends to suppress things that do not fit it's methodology, it seems more rational to go with the preponderance of evidences, rather than an isolated conspiracy theory that may or may not be true. Personally, I doubt the guy found what he says. I don't think most animals could leave fossilized remains in the time of dinos. It is possible, if the guy is honest, that he found a site that was disturbed or pushed up or something, and the various sorts of fossils from different ages were mixed. I would not base the world, and all reality and the past and the bible on this supposed incident though. Thank you very much.

 

Just because a word "can" also be translated another way does not mean that it must be. Also to claim that the only possible time a rapid separation could have happened...while providing no reasons....is meaningless. In fact, with the requited migration and evolving of animals after they left the ark, it makes more sense to assume the separation came after the flood.

With the consistency of rock being different in the former none of that applies or matters. Unless he proves there was a same state in the past. Even the fountains of the deep seem to require features or differences in the consistency or rock in the pre flood era, to allow water to come up from below I suspect.

 

I was hoping for a more definitive answer. Early scholars had a different interpretation of Zech 14:4-5. For example, this is Tertullian:

"Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire—'In the day-time He was teaching in the temple;' just as He had foretold by Hosea: 'In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them.' 'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives' (Luke 21:37). For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives' (Zech 14:4). Fit hours for an audience there also were. 'Early in the morning' must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah,' The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned') added, 'He hath appointed me the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear' (Isa 50:4). Now if this is to destroy the prophets, what will it be to fulfil them?" [Roberts & Donaldson, Tertullian, Against Marcion, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 03: Latin Christianity." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1918, Book IV.xxxix, p.417] ​

And Eusebius:

"And it was when our Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, had (c) visited the olive-grove over against Jerusalem (Mat 24:1), since the words of the prophecy were fulfilled which said, 'His feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives opposite to Jerusalem (Zec 14:4),' that is, the life of holiness having been established throughout all the world, that all the nations, according to the prophecy, kept the Feast of Tabernacles together in every place to the God of the prophets (Zec 14:16), and the Egyptians from that time recognizing God erected tents in every town and country place, which mean the local Christian Churches. For the power of our Saviour Jesus Christ has pegged them far better than Moses' tents through the whole world, so that every race of men and all the Gentiles may keep their Feast of Tabernacles to Almighty God." [William John Ferrar, Demonstratio Evangelica, "Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel Vol II." MacMillan& Co., 1920, Book VIII.4, pp.146-147] ​

Besides, there is not a whisper about an earthly reign in Revelation 20:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." -- Rev 20:4-6 KJV​

Even the land promise ultimately pointed to another place. When Samuel made this promise, the children of Israel were living in Canaan under King David:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime," -- 2Sam 7:8-10 KJV​

And the promises to Abraham and the fathers points to a heavenly residence:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God . . . These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country . . . But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." -- Heb 11:8-10, 13-14,16 KJV​

Even Paul was seeking a heavenly kingdom:

"And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." -- 2Tim 4:18 KJV​

Therefore, I am seeking support for an earthly kingdom that is more obvious than the obscure passage from Zechariah 14. Besides, the Septuagint points to the first century destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of Zech 14:1-3,

"Behold, the days of the Lord come, and thy spoils shall be divided in thee. And I will gather all the Gentiles to Jerusalem to war, and the city shall be taken, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the rest of my people shall not be utterly cut off from the city. And the Lord shall go forth, and fight with those Gentiles as when he fought in the day of war." -- Zec 14:1-3 LXX​

Rev