Reply to Casey Davis

Reply to Casey Davis

 

Casey, I do apologize but I leave Messenger only for family notifications and information.

Let me try to straighten some of this out.  Wikipedia is a great source of information and always has been.  The past 8 years though there has been a definite editorial slant on evolutionary, political and theological articles. I was once an editor in the late 90’s but they will not let me anymore because my viewpoints differ from theirs- what has that got to do with looking up and verifying facts is anybody’s guess.  I still use it on a regular basis, but am wary of the information I am seeking.

One of the things to remember is that just because someone says something does not make it true.  I know, I know, you have probably heard that for so long you are sick of it.  Even if it is true, that does not make it factual.  If it is factual, that still does not mean it supports the original premise.  Through a series of faulty logical applications, individuals can make virtually any statement support their given point of view.

Of the article you presented me with, I found 10 outright distortions of facts; however, it does not look like it has been edited recently, so maybe that may clear up in the near future. Since I had spent 9 years writing software for the oil/gas industry, I asked a few friends who are geo-physicists  to review that article for me.  They all agreed, it was fairly well written, had a few statements that required “leaps of faith” to believe and that it editorialized some of the facts instead of just presenting them. Two were creationists, one a Christian who believes the earth is billions of years old and two would be considered evolutionary geo-physicists.  They all work together and are finding millions of gallons of oil and gas for the various companies out here in west Texas.

There is so much that evolutionists do not want to talk about.  For instance:

One of the problems facing geologists is folded rock. What would cause a layer of rock to fold without breaking?  Evolutionary geologists will say it would take large amounts of heat and pressure.  What can cause that?  Well, volcanoes can.  However, in the instance above and the one below there are no volcanoes anywhere near that area where these folded rocks exist.  (By the way, this is just two examples out of approximately 400 throughout the world).

In geology, the issue of folding of solid rocks is very similar to the issue of the origin of life in Darwinian evolution: a working hypothesis, not even a theory. Here are some points to ponder:

  1. The range of pressure and temperature (one cannot disconnect the two) needed to “plasticize” solid sedimentary rocks is well below that which diamonds need in order to form. Well, we do have the technology to reach such pressures and temperatures in order to create artificial diamonds, so why hasn’t anyone tried to replicate solid sedimentary rock bending (folding) then?
  2. If one reads what textbooks say about burial metamorphism—the process through which sedimentary rocks become metamorphic rocks because of increased pressure and temperature when sediments subside—a “conundrum” becomes evident: why is it that similar and even lower pressure and temperature conditions alleged for rock folding leave sedimentary rocks unchanged? They should become metamorphic at least in the apex area of folds (when you bend a metal plate, temperature increases in the apex of the fold), so that quartz sandstone should turn into a quartzite for example. Yet through the eight kilometres of its thickness, the Old Red Sandstone for example, while beautifully folded, always remains sandstone, it never becomes metamorphic rock even in the most intensely folded areas.

Arguments from authority and use of ridicule are not at all scientific and almost always are an attempt to mask underlying angst and uncertainty.

  1. At the Whaleback Anticline near Shamoking, Northumberland County in Pennsylvania, there is a fossilized tree on one of the flanks of the anticline. Geologist James Stuby points out: “Notice how the bedding dips at a steep angle, yet the shear stresses acting on the rock have conspired to keep the tree vertical.” Now isn’t that interesting and impossible? So the solid rock containing a fossil tree was bent and the tree somehow stayed vertical!!! Imagine you have a stack of cards and a toothpick inserted between them, parallel to the long side of the cards. You bend the stack to imitate an anticline and on one of the sloping sides the toothpick somehow remains vertical cutting through the cards! Here is a far more logical explanation: this was initially a pile of soft, unbound sediments in which a tree was buried, then the soft sediments were folded while the hard tree remained vertical (the best position to minimize damage during lateral compression). Subsequently solutions rich in minerals seeped through the sediments, replacing the wood (lignin) with mineral matter (fossilizing the tree) and also binding the grains in the soft sediments and thus turning them into hard rock (sand into sandstone, mud into mudstone, etc.)

However, if the mud was laid down in layers (such as a catastrophic flood)  then as the  waters receded and the cataclysmic forces under the earth’s mantle would have begun the process of plate tectonics and the thickened mud would have easily bent.

The below is an example of a theological discussion of how the same events could occur.

“The fountains of the great deep” are mentioned before “the windows of heaven” , indicating either relative importance or the order of events. What are “the fountains of the great deep”?  This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11.  “Fountains of the deep” is used in Genesis 8:2, where  it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear.  “The great deep”

is used three other times: Isaiah  51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/judgment.  “The deep”is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13, Eze. 26:19, Jonah. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means ‘fountain, spring, well’ (Strong’s Concordance).   So, “the fountains of the great deep” are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.

Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The  waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the Flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 might suggest an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they would never again cover the earth (verse 9). They are the same waters!

Mt Everest is almost 9 km (5½ miles) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered  “all the high hills under the whole heaven”?    At this time in the history of the early geo-physicists and geologists pretty much agree that the continents did not exist the way they do today.  Mt.  Everest was formed by the concept of plate tectonics.   The Bible refers only to ‘high hills’, and the mountains today were

formed only towards the end of, and after , the Flood by collision of the  tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers  that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are themselves composed  of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the floodwaters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today’s Earth surface.

Notice  that the Biblical point of view gives an explanation of events that could have caused or resulted in the features seen.  The evolutionary point of view does neither and cannot explain the absence of the catalyst (volcano’s missing)  or how these formations could have been formed elsewhere and transported to this area.  You and I will not be able to know for sure which one is correct, but I usually go with the one that explains more of what is seen.

Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s