Scripture PRIOR to the Flood

[UTEOTW]

I must apologize, since I left off two important things.

First, in the angular uncomformities I left out a crucial step. After the initial layers form, they must be tilted before being partially eroded and then covered by additional layers.

Second, I offered no explanation of where the canyon DID come from. I shall defer to a link here.

http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
When solids are suspended in water (or any fluid) the largest settle out first and the smallest take the longest to settle out. If all of these layers were laid down at once, the layers should be sorted with the coarsest material at the bottom and the finest at the top. This is not so.

Won't the densest material settle out first?

 

[OldRegular]

An alternative view to that of UTEOTW can be found at

http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?Realm=Entire+ICR+Website&Terms=Grand+Canyon

A summary of the formation is presented at

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-066b.htm

 

[Charles Meadows]

Oldreg,

I never said that the case was sealed in favor of an old earth.

And the evolution arguments are full of holes, yes.

But that being said the weight of evidence still suggests the earth is old.

I never said you were arrogant - but rather the assumption that Genesis MUST be literal, or that God COULD NOT have used some degree of evolution to finish the fullness of creation.

And I reject the statments made by Mattell and Monod.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Won't the densest material settle out first?"

Density is only a minor player. The diameter of the partical and the viscosity of the liquid are the two most important factors. Here is a quick primer on the laws at work.

http://www.cord.edu/faculty/ulnessd/legacy/fall1998/sonja/stokes.htm

It is well established physics and is very frequently used.

"An alternative view to that of UTEOTW can be found at

http://www.icr.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?Realm=Entire+ICR+Website&Terms=Grand+Canyon

A summary of the formation is presented at

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-066b.htm "

I fail to see anything here about angular unconformities or meanders or the material being strong enough to make high cliffs yet weak enough to rapidly erode or the ecology of the distinct layers or the layers not being sorted according to Stoke's Law as they should be. There was some mention of lava but they seem to made some of the standard YE dating errors. I am sure they mentioned trace fossils somewhere, but I could not find it.

Getting back to the dating, Austin makes some mistakes which can only be described as purposeful or incompetent. Sorry to be hars, but they are mistakes that no trained geologists would make unless he was trying to massage data to make a point. In fact, he often cites a work by other geologists where they use what is a mistake in his context to properly learn the age of the common material from which the different flows came.

A good primer on all the mistakes in dating the Grand Canyon by the ICR, especially Austin, can be found here.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol18/8233_bibliolatry_in_the_grand_canyo_12_30_1899.asp

Skip down about 2/3s of the way to the section entitled "Radioisotope Dating."

 

[OldRegular]

UTEOTW

Stoke's Equation shows that the sedimentation rate or velocity depends on the surface area of the particle, the viscosity of the fluid, and the force [presumably weight] exerted on the particle. Given two particles with the same surface area but different densities which will settle faster in a viscous fluid?

 

[UTEOTW]

YOu are absolutely right that for the same diameter that the denser material will settle more quickly. The settling rate is proportional to the density but also to the SQUARE of the diameter. So something twice as dense will settle maybe twice as fast (not exactly) but if you halve the diameter it is a fourfold increase. In addition, the range of densities for the layers is likely from about 1.5 to maybe 6 of so specific gravity, four fold change from one end to another. The range of particle sizes in such a calamity would likely be from a few microns to at least a few centimeters, a factor of 10,000. And since it is diameter squared, this makes a difference of 10000 X 10000 = 10,000,000,000 fold. So diameter is a stronger indicator.

But we are getting lost in the details. Let's go back to a simple statement. If you were to have formed all these layers in one such event, they would have sorted themselves according to known laws involving their size and their density. The layers are not so sorted. Something is wrong with that as an explanation.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by shannonL:
Thank you. Like I said I don't know much about the argument.

SHannon

I don't know if you are still following the thread or not. Your statement here sort of got left on the previous page of the thread. If you will allow, I'd like to make a few statements.

First off, in case you had not noticed, I am one of those guys who have accepted theistic evolution as the only position for which I can feel intellectually and spiritually honest about. It puts me in the great minority of Baptists, I know. Many of the people I know do not know how I feel on the subject. I don't think that even my own mother does. I just do not feel the need to be too divisive. I do, however, take a different approach online because I think that it is an important issue for believers to get worked out.

To finish the introduction, I was once YE, but really did not know anything about it. I "knew" that evolution was evil and wrong and that there must be some satisfying answer out there. So at some poiont I decided to start looking at YE material to get that information. At first, something just seemed wrong about it but I could not put my finger on it. Then I came across something I did know something about. After having all that thermodynamics drilled into my head while getting an engineering degree, the problems with the argument that says that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics jumped right off the page at me. So I went back and started reading more widely about all of the issues. It did not take me long after that point to decide that YE was unsupportable and that OE is the only way to go if you are simply going to accept the evidence that God has placed in His creation at face value.

I say all that to get to some advice which you can take or leave. Also to give a brief glimpse at hints at why I have a fairly low opinion of most YE leaders.

If you are happy in your faith that the earth is young and have little other interest, then I would leave it right there. This would mean that you find little to no interest in things like young earth and old earth discussion, whether the flood was local or global, whether intelligent design and/or evolution should be taught in schools. And so on. If you have little interest in these subjects and if you are happy in your faith that the earth is young, just leave it at that. Getting into the other can be a shock to your system, one that some people do not survive with their faith intact.

However, if you are interested, then I would suggest educating yourself. Read all sides and be as open as possible. Do not blindly believe any one source.

For YE sources, the leading ones would be groups like AIG (Answers in Genesis), ICR (Institute for Creation Research) and Trueorigin.com.

For the other side, well Google is your friend. You can also use OEC websites like AnswersInCreation.org. Perhaps the best is the search ( http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html ) and index ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html ) at talkorigins.org. One nice thing about talkorigins is that they often link to YE material so that you can read both sides easily. Like if you use the search function with "Grand Canyon" the first link is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html which has a link right at the top in a box on the right side to an AIG article. Often there will be several such links.

And check references! Here Google Scholar is your friend ( http://scholar.google.com/ ). THis lets you look up those papers you see mentioned to see if they really say what the person claims. For example, I was discussing human genetics with someone recently ( http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html? ) when they used an article from AIG to counter some point I had made ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000093 ) . In the part they quoted, the author at AIG said that "primate phylogenies are in a mess" and gave a reference. So I went and looked up the reference and the author of the paper in question actually said "problem of hominoid phylogeny can be confidently considered solved" and also called the result "overwhelming." Now the AIG article sounded really good. But their claims were completely different than what they said their references said. So check, check, check and then check some more.

There is a semi-active and hidden forum on this board where these discussions take place if you want to lurk, ask questions or join in.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/forum/66.html

I apologize if this is too forward or presumptive. Also, all of the standard warnings that your mileage may vary on what you think about any and all of the potential resources suggested.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Getting away from angular unconformities and back to the topic of the preservation of scripture from before the flood, I see three possibilities that all work within a literal and infallible Bible:

The first option is what I believe and what is proposed by John Philips in Exploring Genesis(which I think is excellent by the way). That these portions of scripture were written down and passed on to Moses. If you look at Genesis and the repetition of the phrase “The generations of . . .” you can divide it up into sections. I think the way Philips has it divided up is into 11 sections, the first dictated by God to Adam (nobody could have witnessed the first 6 days) and the other sections written by Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and Joseph. You can look it up yourself if you want, I may have some incorrect. The only real difficulties here are that you need to believe that there was a written language all the way back to Adam (I have no problem with that), and Moses had to be able to read that language (remember the tower of Babel?). This could be accomplished either by God giving Moses a gift of tongues that enabled him to read this original language of the earth, or perhaps Hebrew was the original language. I like this theory and I like the idea of these ancient clay tablets being passed on from generation to generation, some actually carried on the ark. Some perhaps safeguarded by Jethro before being given to Moses. I just think that’s cool and that God could have done that. Could have, but of course God did not have to do it this way.

Option two is that these stories were not written down but passed on orally. That they were told by eye witnesses who added to the tradition with each generation. Of course this fits the oral traditions of Middle East civilization and could be true.

Option three is God just told Moses what happened. This is certainly a miraculous event and within God’s ability, just not as cool to me.

 

[Sonjeo]

Since God gave Moses the inspiration to write the first books, what would be so hard about God giving Moses information from before the flood. I do not believe Moses got his info so much from any historical records as he did from God. That being the case, any number of things could have been written down but of course Moses wrote down exactly what God told him to write.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Sonjeo:
Since God gave Moses the inspiration to write the first books, what would be so hard about God giving Moses information from before the flood. I do not believe Moses got his info so much from any historical records as he did from God. That being the case, any number of things could have been written down but of course Moses wrote down exactly what God told him to write.

I agree!