Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[bcuzbcuz]

The flood waters now comprise the watwrs found in the ocean. The mountains we now have came about after the flood.

 

Well, problem solved then............

[thesometimesaint]

Typical evolutionists...

Typical anti-scientist.

[thesometimesaint]

The flood waters now comprise the watwrs found in the ocean. The mountains we now have came about after the flood.

 

Wrong on so many levels.

[Rob Osborn]

Wrong on so many levels.

One day we shall see the great truth in the global flood.

[strappinglad]

Hang on , the climate change proponents argue that because the ice caps are melting the ocean levels are rising. They claim a future sea level rise of several meters which will devastate an enormous percentage of the earth's peoples who occupy the coastlines. There are even map projections showing the look of the continents after such an increase. Yet you are saying that all the water in the atmosphere plus all the water underground would only add a couple of inches to the water levels. Can't have it both ways.

There are at least 2 ways to inundate a piece of property. 1. extensive rains which cause overland flooding , usually accompanied by high river levels. 2. earthquakes which drop land levels and open areas to ocean or lake infiltration.

Few dispute that huge areas of the US and Canada were once inland shallow oceans. I wonder where all that water went to? If one looks at the ocean bed east of where the Hudson river exits the land ,there is an enormous canyon that continues for miles under the current ocean level. Runoff perhaps? Nah.

[thesometimesaint]

One day we shall see the great truth in the global flood.

 

I certainly hope so.

[thesometimesaint]

Hang on , the climate change proponents argue that because the ice caps are melting the ocean levels are rising. They claim a future sea level rise of several meters which will devastate an enormous percentage of the earth's peoples who occupy the coastlines. There are even map projections showing the look of the continents after such an increase. Yet you are saying that all the water in the atmosphere plus all the water underground would only add a couple of inches to the water levels. Can't have it both ways.

There are at least 2 ways to inundate a piece of property. 1. extensive rains which cause overland flooding , usually accompanied by high river levels. 2. earthquakes which drop land levels and open areas to ocean or lake infiltration.

Few dispute that huge areas of the US and Canada were once inland shallow oceans. I wonder where all that water went to? If one looks at the ocean bed east of where the Hudson river exits the land ,there is an enormous canyon that continues for miles under the current ocean level. Runoff perhaps? Nah.

 

Ice caps and glaciers.

[strappinglad]

Is all the water on the outer surface of the earth a zero sum situation? All the ice from the ice age covering of North America came from where? And went where? Is there such a thing as salt water ice?

[thesometimesaint]

Is all the water on the outer surface of the earth a zero sum situation? All the ice from the ice age covering of North America came from where? And went where? Is there such a thing as salt water ice?

 

There are essentially two different types of ice. Sea Ice. Ice floats so there is not a net increase in the volume of water when it melts. Land Ice melting does increase the net volume of water.  Antarctica, Glaciers, Greenland, Alaska, and northern Canada have the Land Ice type.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

[danielwoods]

Right. And I used to agree, that the evolutionary model held water. I don't any more.

 

Please explain why.

Basically, I started to take into account the other data that effects the whole situation. For example, the "geological incongruities" that are just passed over or ignored, such as the one I mentioned before, I couldn't ignore any longer. In addition to that, I started to realize the philosophical and spiritual motivation for believing in long ages and wondered if that could influence science.

Basically, without long ages, there is no evolutionary tree as believed by most of science. I honestly didn't care one way or the other. I just wanted to know the truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Basically, I started to take into account the other data that effects the whole situation. For example, the "geological incongruities" that are just passed over or ignored, such as the one I mentioned before, I couldn't ignore any longer. In addition to that, I started to realize the philosophical and spiritual motivation for believing in long ages and wondered if that could influence science.

Basically, without long ages, there is no evolutionary tree as believed by most of science. I honestly didn't care one way or the other. I just wanted to know the truth.

 

Lots depends on what that other data is. I don't know what you mean by "geological incongruities". If you mean something we don't fully understand, I absolutely agree. If you mean that because you don't know, then no one will ever know, or that God did it. I absolutely disagree. Simple history shows the fallacy of such thinking.

 

I've never said to ignore anything. I am open to new information if there is a reasonable reason to do so.

 

We can never fully divorce ourselves from our own philosophical and spiritual motivations. But it is unlikely that your motivations will be exactly the same as mine. So they tend to cancel each other out.

 

The reasons behind an old earth are many including finding the bones of animals no longer alive here on earth.

 

Not to be be unkind, but if you really didn't care we wouldn't be having this conversation. For me if I have to throw out all the evidence for something just to maintain my belief in God. I'm better off living in a cave afraid of the dark. Fortunately neither my science nor my God requires that of me.

 

“I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God, I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might just as well speculate on the mind of Newton.”

Charles Darwin.

 

He is buried in Westminster Abbey.

[Rob Osborn]

I just returned from a weekend down in Mesquite and once again being reminded of the great testimony of the rocks pointing to a great deluge and destruction of the land. For those who have never seen the area it is replete with myriads of strata layers all twisted and contorted. vast amounts of sandstone sedimentary rocks also dot the land. Of major interest however is that the mountainous areas show these same sedimentary layers twisted and contorted in every direction showing the obvious signs that soon after deposit they were violently upthrust and twisted before becoming hardened into hard rock from which large pieces then broke off and fell all over the place. Such vast material and evidence is not testimony to slow gradual processes.

[thesometimesaint]

I just returned from a weekend down in Mesquite and once again being reminded of the great testimony of the rocks pointing to a great deluge and destruction of the land. For those who have never seen the area it is replete with myriads of strata layers all twisted and contorted. vast amounts of sandstone sedimentary rocks also dot the land. Of major interest however is that the mountainous areas show these same sedimentary layers twisted and contorted in every direction showing the obvious signs that soon after deposit they were violently upthrust and twisted before becoming hardened into hard rock from which large pieces then broke off and fell all over the place. Such vast material and evidence is not testimony to slow gradual processes.

 

It isn't just a river in Egypt.

[Alan]

I just returned from a weekend down in Mesquite and once again being reminded of the great testimony of the rocks pointing to a great deluge and destruction of the land. For those who have never seen the area it is replete with myriads of strata layers all twisted and contorted. vast amounts of sandstone sedimentary rocks also dot the land. Of major interest however is that the mountainous areas show these same sedimentary layers twisted and contorted in every direction showing the obvious signs that soon after deposit they were violently upthrust and twisted before becoming hardened into hard rock from which large pieces then broke off and fell all over the place. Such vast material and evidence is not testimony to slow gradual processes.

 

Rob, you are quite right.

It isn't that evolutionists have evidence that disproves creation/flood etc, it's just that the evidence that does exist can be interpreted in more than one way.

[strappinglad]

As far as long ages are concerned, consider the moon dust problem. Before man landed on the moon, scientists were worried that there would not be a good place to land because they suspected deep layers of dust to have accumulated over the 4+ billion years of existence. Actual landings showed there was less than an inch of dust. Hmmm. Then there were the measurements taken or extrapolated from the dust accumulation on solar cells used to power instruments left on the moon. The speed at which dust was building up over the years was figured out and if the moon had been in existence for billions of years or even from the time of the last great bombardment there should have been dust about 2 miles thick. From the actual depth of dust, the age of the moon would have to be around 25,000 years. Scientists are now trying to figure out what other variable could account for such minimal dust. It is obvious that something else is going on because everyone KNOWS the moon is billions of years old.

By the way, a similar date of around 20,000 years was arrived at by measuring the amount of inert gases found on moon rocks. That info was also immediately rejected as some error or anomaly .

[cinepro]

As far as long ages are concerned, consider the moon dust problem. Before man landed on the moon, scientists were worried that there would not be a good place to land because they suspected deep layers of dust to have accumulated over the 4+ billion years of existence. Actual landings showed there was less than an inch of dust. Hmmm. Then there were the measurements taken or extrapolated from the dust accumulation on solar cells used to power instruments left on the moon. The speed at which dust was building up over the years was figured out and if the moon had been in existence for billions of years or even from the time of the last great bombardment there should have been dust about 2 miles thick. From the actual depth of dust, the age of the moon would have to be around 25,000 years. Scientists are now trying to figure out what other variable could account for such minimal dust. It is obvious that something else is going on because everyone KNOWS the moon is billions of years old.

By the way, a similar date of around 20,000 years was arrived at by measuring the amount of inert gases found on moon rocks. That info was also immediately rejected as some error or anomaly .

 

Dude, not even the people at "Answers in Genesis" stand behind that argument anymore:

 

Moon-Dust Argument No Longer Useful

 

 

 

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument. They have shown that:

 

1. The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

2. Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

3. Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Edited February 17, 2014 by cinepro

[Calm]

From the actual depth of dust, the age of the moon would have to be around 25,000 years......By the way, a similar date of around 20,000 years was arrived at by measuring the amount of inert gases found on moon rocks. That info was also immediately rejected as some error or anomaly .

How many young earth creationists are happy with a 25,000 year age of the moon? Edited February 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tiki]

From a 1980 Ensign article:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/09/the-gospel-and-the-scientific-view-how-earth-came-to-be?lang=eng#pop_001-03126_000_017

"Within this enlarged view of a celestial uniformity, the worldwide flood of Noah’s time, so upsetting to a restricted secular view, fits easily into place. It is the earth’s baptism. Brigham Young pointed out that the earth “abides the law of its creation, has been baptized with water, will be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, and by-and-by will be prepared for the faithful to dwell upon” (in Journal of Discourses, 8:83).

The law for a world such as ours closely parallels the law for its inhabitants. Like each of us, the earth existed for a time in the presence of God in a premortal, uncorrupted condition. Like each of us, it entered a fallen, mortal condition. Like us, it must be sanctified by being born again, first of the water and then of the Spirit. The earth has been cleansed by water baptism, and its cleansing by fire associated with the last days will allow the Holy Spirit to dwell throughout the whole earth during the Millennium when the earth, not yet glorified, will be sanctified. For the earth, as for us, the work of salvation can only be completed through death, which will alter its mortal structure, followed by a glorious resurrection, which will establish it upon celestial principles that it may abide in that glory forever."

[strappinglad]

Here's an update, cinepro.

Long-lost Apollo data on lunar dust accumulation has been found, showing a tenfold increase over previous estimates. What does that imply about the age of the moon?

PhysOrg reported that 46-year-old data from Apollo experiments on the moon have been rediscovered, allowing lunar scientists to calculate the rate of dust accumulation (Headline: “Rediscovered Apollo data gives first measure of how fast moon dust piles up.”). A new paper in Space Weather, a publication of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), updates previous estimates based on measurements from detectors at the Apollo 12, 14, and 15 landing sites. Dust accumulation is an order of magnitude greater than previously thought, although it could be significantly less, the abstract says. PhysOrg did not indicate any doubt about it:

Now, more than 40 years later, scientists have used the rediscovered data to make the first determination of how fast lunar dust accumulates. It builds up unbelievably slowly by the standards of any Earth-bound housekeeper, their calculations show – just fast enough to form a layer about a millimeter (0.04 inches) thick every 1,000 years. Yet, that rate is 10 times previous estimates.

The “faster-than-expected pileup” of dust explains why detectors lost sensitivity over the years. Brian O’Brien, who designed the detectors in 1966, finally recovered the data for a fresh look from his own backups when he heard in 2006 that NASA had lost their copies. Now aged 79, he co-authored the new paper with Monique Hollick who had not even been born then. PhysOrg used an analogy to explain the results:

In his experiment, dust collected on small solar cells attached to a matchbox-sized case over the course of six years, throughout three Apollo missions. As the granules blocked light from coming in, the voltage the solar cells produced dropped. The electrical measurements indicated that each year 100 micrograms of lunar dust collected per square centimeter. At that rate, a basketball court on the Moon would collect roughly 450 grams (1 pound) of lunar dust annually.

The detectors had been hardened against solar radiation, but not against dust accumulation. The decline in sensitivity of the detectors provides a measure of dust accumulation. If 0.04 inches per 1,000 years can be taken as an average, some 15,000 feet of dust should have accumulated over the assumed age of 4.5 billion years. Even if starting the dust clock after the assumed Late Heavy Bombardment, the dust should be nearly 12,000 feet thick (over 2 miles) unless other processes can provide sinks against accumulation.

O’Brien said that the new rate is more than can be accounted for from meteors and cosmic dust. He believes the difference might be explained by levitation of dust from the sunlit side, when the solar wind imparts charge to dust particles, lofting them above the surface where they can migrate. The LADEE spacecraft launched in September might be able to account for the volume of dust in the thin lunar atmosphere.

Before and after Apollo, some creationists used lunar dust accumulation estimates to argue for a young moon. Those of us who lived through the days of Apollo remember Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin surprised at being able to scrape through a thin layer of dust to bare rock. Notable scientists like Isaac Asimov and Thomas Gold had expected deep layers of dust. Before Apollo 11, the unmanned Surveyors showed in 1966, however, that thick dust was not there. It seemed obvious that the expectations of the long-agers had been falsified when those astronaut boots found only a thin layer. Most creationists abandoned the argument when later estimates significantly lowered the accumulation rate. CMI has advised creationists not to use this argument (details: CMI). Now, however, this new data looks interesting. Is it time to re-open that investigation? (One creation scientist who has kept the argument alive is Dr. Walt Brown, who performed his own calculations.)

For a robust analysis, investigators would need to consider all sources and sinks, and determine any non-linear or localized processes. For instance, if levitation merely moves dust from the sunlit side to the dark side and back again, accumulation may not result. Does levitation lead to escape? The accumulation at the 3 landing sites might reflect local accumulation, not global averages. New investigations would need to consider all reasonable dust sources from asteroids, cosmic dust and other non-lunar material. Our quick calculation, though, shows at least two miles of dust should have accumulated in 3.8 or 4.5 billion years, based on what the new paper says. It’s not there. Where did it go?

Three aspects of the PhysOrg story might motivate reclaiming the lunar dust argument for an upper limit on the moon’s age. (1) One is that the new estimate is 10 times higher than previously thought. (2) Another is the steady decline in sensitivity of the instruments; it indicates dust is accumulating at a steady, predictable rate, at least at the three Apollo sites, rather than reaching a steady state. (3) A final aspect is how silent the article was about the implications of lunar age. Are the secularists afraid to address that question? It resembles their reaction to Titan: when the ethane accumulation was far below the global

- See more at: http://crev.info/2013/11/lunar-dust-problem-re-opened/#sthash.VcYOSttT.dpuf

[cinepro]

Update: As of February 2014, the Church is still teaching a global flood in the Ensign:

 

Old Testament Prophets: Noah

[Brian 2.0]

Update: As of February 2014, the Church is still teaching a global flood in the Ensign:

 

Old Testament Prophets: Noah

 

Written in first person?  What does this look like in the physical magazine, because I reads like it belongs in The Friend, not in the Ensign.

 

also... as someone who believes the church's current stance is global flood... I have to admit that I find nothing in this article to require that.  This article seems to allow local flood as the interpretation no problem.  Unless I missed something.

[Brian 2.0]

Written in first person?  What does this look like in the physical magazine, because I reads like it belongs in The Friend, not in the Ensign.

 

also... as someone who believes the church's current stance is global flood... I have to admit that I find nothing in this article to require that.  This article seems to allow local flood as the interpretation no problem.  Unless I missed something.

 

I guess the "father of all living in his day" quote from Joseph Smith would have to indicate that every human died... so it's at least a big enough flood to kill of everyone on the earth.  So if one thinks the flood is local, then the population density was of equal local-ness.

[Brian 2.0]

I guess the "father of all living in his day" quote from Joseph Smith would have to indicate that every human died... so it's at least a big enough flood to kill of everyone on the earth.  So if one thinks the flood is local, then the population density was of equal local-ness.

 

actually... that doesn't make sense, because he wasn't the father of his wife or his son's wives... so I don't know what that quote means.   Have to make "father" not literal in the quote?

Edited February 18, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

I guess the "father of all living in his day" quote from Joseph Smith would have to indicate that every human died... so it's at least a big enough flood to kill of everyone on the earth.  So if one thinks the flood is local, then the population density was of equal local-ness.

That would require him to be the father of his wife if we assume she was still living.

I am assuming it likely isn't written this way, but my preference would be to use a phrase like that as a spiritual title, he is the spiritual father of those of his dispensation.

[Calm]

actually... that doesn't make sense, because he wasn't the father of his wife or his son's wives... so I don't know what that quote means.   Have to make "father" not literal in the quote?

Great minds....