I did not see info stating both supercontinents were under water at the same time, or ever completely understand water. All the data shows different flooding at different times and never the entire supercontinent.
2 Likes
That is the uniformitarianian model. Under persistent kneading plates can move 2cm a year. And? That means magic how?
Really? How is it that no land animals perished in an alleged series of 3 mega-tsunamis? Your assertion that we would expect exclusively marine life to perish in a series of 3 mega-tsunami events makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I would point out that, by contrast, the progression from (marine life) to (marine life + amphibians) to (marine life + amphibians + reptiles) to (marine life + amphibians + reptiles + mammals) is 100% consistent with the natural history of the past several hundred million years as described by mainstream paleontology.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but in the absence of mathematical geophysics, what you believe is entirely irrelevant to science. Until you provide some actual scientific work, instead of the speculation you have been producing, Don, observers like me – who respect science, who respect scientists, and worship the God who made an orderly universe that can be described by mathematical physics – have only one logical choice: we have to keep trusting the consensus geophysics.
Consensus geophysicists have done the hard work of building mathematical, geophysics models that explain several hundred million years of tectonics. As far as I can tell, all you are offering is pure speculation. Sorry, Don. Because I believe in a God who has made the world orderly in a fashion that can be described by mathematical physics, I cannot give any credence to your speculation.
I have said this several times, but you seem deaf to what I am saying. Or is it the case that the mathematical work in support of YEC models (for example, of uplift of the Himalayas in a YEC timeframe) simply does not exist?
Actually, you are engaged with quite the argument with yourself. I am astonished that you do not remember reaching a different conclusion just a day ago:
Seriously, Don. Do you not recognize that you are contradicting yourself?
Sea level rose perhaps as high as 800 feet, which flooded the swampy plains of today’s Midwest. However, the US Geological Survey states that high mountains existed on the continent during those eras. I pointed that out to you, and you seemed to acknowledge it. But a mere 24 hours later you seem to remember nothing of that conversation. What gives? I do not feel like I am speaking with a trustworthy conversational partner when you contradict yourself this way.
You completely and totally misunderstand the assumptions of mainstream geology. Please give what I am about to say some careful thought.
The scientific community makes one, and only one, fundamental assumption about what happened in the past:
The laws of physics applied.
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Does it contradict the laws of physics that the crust might thin, causing a plate to fragment, and some of the fragments might subsequently at a rate of 2 centimeters per year rather than 1 millimeter per year? As you might suppose, the answer is no, it does not contradict the laws of physics.
And if the answer is no, it does not contradict modern geology. It might contradict the “uniformitarian” geology of 1850, but it does not contradict the geology of 2021 in the least.
You might consider talking about the geology of 2021, rather than setting up a straw man of 1850 and then knocking it down. What does knocking down a 170-year-old, ridiculous straw man accomplish?
Now you might contend that God suspended the laws of physics during the flood year. I would reply that you are inventing that – the Bible does not say a miracle occurred.
Once you lean on miracles to explain the data, we have no way to talk about logic or history or physics. If God suspended the normal operations of the universe, literally anything could have happened.
There is no evidence that could ever disprove an assertion of a miracle. The earth would have been heated to 22,000o C. by accelerated radioactive decay? No problem, the laws of physics were not in operation! Tectonic plates were zipping around like bumper cars, but not leaving the 150,000 feet high mountains that the laws of physics would expect? No problem! The laws of physics were not in operation!
Do you see why some of us might have a problem with this stance?
It’s not that I don’t believe in the miracles labeled as such by the Bible. I believe in the resurrection of Lazarus, and in the resurrection of Jesus. I believe that God healed Naaman of leprosy when he followed Elisha’s instructions to wash in the Jordan. Etcetera.
However, when someone invents a miracle just to support a favorite exegesis, when other plausible exegeses are available–sorry, I cannot go there with you.
Best,
Chris
6 Likes
Bizarre religious beliefs are two a penny. What’s this one got to do with Jesus?
Geophysics explains quite readily how portions of the crust that were once underwater can be lifted up. This is completely conventional geophysics.
There is nothing at all clear about your speculation to the contrary.
Blessings,
Chris
3 Likes
One of the problems (of many) with the YEC approach is that they have to rework all of the physics of the reality of the earth and the cosmos to force fit it to an interpretation of the Bible that they humanly presume to be infallible. And they contradict the Bible in the process.
Every time there is a new discovery which contradicts their skew (which is almost always), they have to back up and punt, missing the goal of truth.
Truth comes from reality – the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.
Terrestrial animals were still able to escape the rising flood waters in these earlier mega sequences, for the most part anyway
It has to do with Jesus’ credibility since He affirmed the historicity of the Flood (Matthew 24; 2 Peter 3)
Close I am sure, judging by the deposits, but not at the same time. Sort of like all my clothes have been washed, but never in one big tub. And multiple times, but not at the same time for either the landforms or my clothes.
1 Like
It’s the rare person who washes all their clothes at once. Not the time to have guests over.
I appreciate that you desire to be faithful to the Scripture. If that is your central issue, you could always adopt the position of Young Earth Creationist and Ph.D. scientist Todd Wood:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I’m crazy or because I’ve “converted” to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I’m motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
…It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.
Secondly, you seem to think these passages exegete themselves, but they do not.
For well over a millenium, Bible scholars were convinced that geocentrism was the only possible configuration of the universe because of passages like Psalm 104, which states “the earth does not move.” Even Luther and Calvin thought Psalm 104 was 100% obviously a scientific statement, and no alternative exegesis was possible.
A century later, the vast majority of Bible scholars had suddenly adopted a non-literalistic exegesis of Psalm 104. Was it because of newfound discoveries about Ancient Near East culture? Was it the result of new research on Hebrew grammar?
Nope. It was because of Galileo and the heliocentric revolution in astronomy. With the invention of the telescope came enormous amounts of data that strongly supported heliocentrism. This scientific revolution in turn prompted a re-thinking by Bible scholars.
In my opinion, it is time to give careful thought as to how there might be a better exegesis of Matthew 24 and II Peter 3. If you’re interested, just ask, and I’m sure many folks here–including me–would be happy to oblige with our take.
Blessings,
Chris
A massive regional flood works just fine in both of your references, so it has nothing to do with Jesus’ credibility.
1 Like
I don’t have any problem with the idea of earth being a water world early on, not unlike what they are saying about exoplanets. That would fit Psalm 104 just fine, too. Is there contrary evidence?
Jesus’ fully human ignorance is a crucial part of of His credibility. But He isn’t demonstrating that in Matthew 24 in which He uses the Flood as a literary allusion and 2 Peter 3 in which He doesn’t but Peter does; whether either of them believed it or not is irrelevant. I’m a Christian and I know, as in know, that there was no Flood or - 6 day YEC - except in the minds of Jewish writers using an ancient Babylonian myth - and cosmology - because of Jesus’ credibility. As to whether they or Jesus and Peter believed any of the nonsense, I wouldn’t be surprised, but also that Jesus in particular didn’t. Nor some of the C6th BCE political genius Exilic writers. The OT abrogates itself on the trajectory of the humanist humanization of God after all. Jesus continued most subtly in that.
You know, as in know, that there was no Noahic flood, not even a massive regional one?
The Zuni (Cretaceous) megasequence saw the highest ocean level and greatest sediment deposition–on all continents. So, the continents were simultaneously covered completely at least in this megasequence
First, surely you acknowledge that marine fossils cover all continents. Right? Which clearly means the earth was, at least once, covered by ocean water.
On the other hand, carousel-like continental subsidence/uplift…subsidence/uplift… subsidence/uplift, etc. etc. would be enough to make any earth-dweller seasick! But…you say you have the “math”–the geophysics–to support such a scenario. So, please fill me in. Give me a link to check out, o.k.? All I have ever read are assertions and suppositions about this.
You must be joking, as the rise and fall of landforms takes place over 100s of millions of years. And while it seems like a lot to us little people, as you see from pictures of the ISS, mountains on the earth are little more change in the surface than the skim of cream in your cup of coffee, and can move and change about as much as the swirl of cream does.
First, Chris, I apologize for the Jesus’ credibility comment I mistakenly attached to your comment–it was meant for someone else.
But, what’s all this talk about a “miracle”? I wasn’t talking about miracles when I said that you can’t project a present-day velocity onto the continental “drift” velocity which resulted from splitting up of Pangea (but pointed out that such an error is completely in keeping with uniformitarianism). As the article I linked pointed out, present-day scientists are realizing that this velocity was significantly higher than they had thought.
So, I was discussing the natural, not the supernatural.
Phil, the question here is, so where is the scientific support for all this purported-to-be repeated subsidence/uplift. Just saying that there is lots of time–millions and millions of years–that it could have happened (“with time…all things are possible!”), is not providing scientific evidence it did happen.