ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Bible Science 101

captJMK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 194

Report this Nov. 04 2005, 12:12 am

Nah! Wrong! First of all, as a geologist I dont need to be lectured by someone who cant come up with his own conclusions and has to cut and paste every response from some Creationist manual. Secondly, in dealing with stratagraphic cross-sections throughout the Permian Basin on almost a daily basis, realization sets in that you are not dealing with a world that is 5000 or 50,000 years old...The damn oil you put in your car takes millions of years to become volatile enough to use. Most basins where oil production occurs is where coral reefs have established and reestablished themselves over several million years as the coastline continually changes. Eventually you have reef formations such as Guadalupe Peak on the Texas and New Mexico border that is currently at an elevation of ~8500 feet above sea level. This is part of the reef structure that existed underwater 250 million years ago. Now, displace 8500 feet of coral reef under sand deposits for a few millenia and the limestone and dolomites compress under pressure and eventually liquify. thus, oil. A process that takes millions of years on a world BILLIONS of years old. not 5000 years. So next time you fill up at the pump, thank evolution that you can drive around town at all!

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Nov. 04 2005, 9:09 am

The problem with being dogmatic based on 'scientific opinion' is that it is just that; opinion, and thus subjective.

Here's an example that shows the difference between observed 'fact' and opinion; A volcanologist sees lava gushing down the side of a volcano and says, 'There's a volcano erupting!' Another volcanologist peers closely at some squiggly lines on a seismograph and says, 'There's a volcano erupting!'

The first is certainly correct. The second may be correct, but he may not be. His conclusion is based, not on direct observation but on subjective opinion.

The age of fossils and method by which they were produced have not been directly observed. The information we have is speculative, and has been proven time and again to be open to revision. In my opinion, there's really no room for dogmatism where there is no direct observation of these processes.

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 04 2005, 1:54 pm

I had to cut and paste just for you captJMK, seeing how you know it all when it comes to geologist. But I think there is a little bias in how you view the world and everything in it. Just becasue you study the topic, doesn't mean you not flawed in your understanding of it.

BTW here is a link for you to review, I hope you like it seeing how you said you do believe in God and all.:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp

captJMK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 194

Report this Nov. 05 2005, 12:24 am

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Nov. 04 2005, 6:09 am)
The problem with being dogmatic based on 'scientific opinion' is that it is just that; opinion, and thus subjective.

Here's an example that shows the difference between observed 'fact' and opinion; A volcanologist sees lava gushing down the side of a volcano and says, 'There's a volcano erupting!' Another volcanologist peers closely at some squiggly lines on a seismograph and says, 'There's a volcano erupting!'

The first is certainly correct. The second may be correct, but he may not be. His conclusion is based, not on direct observation but on subjective opinion.

The age of fossils and method by which they were produced have not been directly observed. The information we have is speculative, and has been proven time and again to be open to revision. In my opinion, there's really no room for dogmatism where there is no direct observation of these processes.

agreed. BUT, for as many scientific arguments there are AGAINST carbon dating and other forms of dating fossils there are just as many FOR it. HOWEVER, like I was saying about Guadalupe Peak in TX, theres NO dispute that it is the remnants of the Permian Basin Coral Reef. I mean, theres fossilized reefbed and fossils from bottom to top. The fossilized reef even extends well BELOW land surface. This is a reef that is OVER 8500 feet TALL. Now, knowing the nature of reefs and how the colony continually builds on top of each other as the water table rises, you dont need carbon dating to ascertain that the reef took MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years just to form to that height underwater!! Have you seen a reef grow? Much less one that grows 8500' in height? It definately didnt take place in 6 days, or 5000 or even 50,000 years. Impossible. And thats just the time it takes in forming the reef itself! Thats not even taking into consideration the time the water retreated, it drying out, it being covered in sand, the sand turning into sandstone, the reef getting compressed into limestone, the sandstone whethering away exposing the peak as it is today, and the time it takes for all the limestone to compress and liquify to form oil resevoirs underneath it all...tick tick tick.

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 05 2005, 12:39 pm

How long does it take for coral to grow?

Corals grow at different rates, depending on water temperature, salinity, turbulence, and the availability of food. The massive corals are the slowest growing species, adding between 5 and 25 millimeters (.2 inches to an 1 inch) per year to their length. Branching and Staghorn corals can grow much faster, adding as much as 20 centimeters (8 inches) to their branches each year.

So going by that, you can see corals don't all take a long time to make.

If you use only the Branching and Staghorn corals, in 50,000 years you would have some being about 33,333 feet, give or take a few feet. hehe

I don't think there is any Coral in the world that tall. Even if you use the 1 inch per year it would be about 4,566 feet tall.

Now don't get me wrong, if Coral has been around for millions of years, don't you think there would be bigger sights found?

Just in 1 million years a Coral reel would be about 83,333 feet tall, if you go by the above numbers. The one that was found was 8500 feet tall, so if you do the math, that makes it about 102,000 years old. Maybe my math is a bit rusty, but that doesn't sound like anything close to a million years old to me.

That's going by the numbers above. And I used the max number in each case.

Where did I get those numbers from?
http://www.coralreef.org/coralreefinfo/about.html

captJMK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 194

Report this Nov. 06 2005, 12:13 am

You goon! The Permian Basin reef is made up of SEVERAL Corals from SEVERAL geologic ages! Not one big coral that grew up one day...The coastline between TX and NM was is and will ever be in a constant state of flux. Thats why you have layers of deposits of sandstone sandwiched in between the different ages marking where the sea retreated and then came back several hundred thousand years or millions later! Besides, even if it were one big coral, that still doesnt answer the time in millions that it took to compress it into limstone and dolomite for the sand deposit to turn into sandstone and for all of it to compress into oil...dee dee DEE

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 06 2005, 6:36 pm

That's fine, but again like what was stated before, there is more than one type of Coral Reef out there, and the numbers don't add up if you do the math.

captJMK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 194

Report this Nov. 06 2005, 8:23 pm

So the numbers dont add up that earth is 5000 years old either, or that bushes on fire can talk to people, or a man can live inside of a whale, or two people (in a 5000 year time period) could spawn the population of the entire world, have it all wiped out by a flood and then one family of people repopulate it again to the current population of what 6 billion people?...none of that crap adds up!

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 07 2005, 2:15 pm

You know your the only one yelling about 5000 years old Earth.  ;) I am still weighting the debate in my mind about that topic.  :laugh:

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 08 2005, 4:33 pm

Quote (SirCedric2 @ Nov. 05 2005, 4:36 pm)
That's fine, but again like what was stated before, there is more than one type of Coral Reef out there, and the numbers don't add up if you do the math.

If flood geology is true, then the modern reefs started growing only after Noah's Flood was over with. After all, the Flood itself would have killed off all corals by kicking up a slurry of clay particles in all the ocean waters. These particles would have taken years to settle out. Corals require clear water and cannot stand any turbidity. Even though modern creationists allow gaps in the Biblical genealogies, standard ICR works like Scientific Creationism (General Edition) allow no more than several thousand years between Noah's Flood and today. To fit Eniwetok into their time constraints, the ICR creationists are forced to ignore the findings of Ladd.

So if flood did occur it would have killed all the coral in the ocean of earth, we seen the same effect of the massive tidal waves on Coral bed in the indian ocean early this year.

So in the time span between the flood and today we would not have had the time for coral to develop to the height we see today.

The fossil Rainbow Lake reefs formed in Devonian times where Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories meet. As Hriskevich (1970), Langton (1968), and others show, these reefs trap important oil reserves. Since they are buried in and intertongue with other sedimentary rocks, they must have formed in the Flood of Noah, if flood geology is true. Nevertheless, they form solid winding barrier reefs consisting of intergrown dolomitized coral and coral-derived debris glued together by calcareous algae. In other words, they look just like modern barrier reefs, not like piles of loose coral that the tidal waves of Noah's Flood threw together by chance. One reef is over 240 meters thick. Unless petroleum geologists have grossly erred somehow, we calculate, using the generous growth rate of a centimeter per year, that this reef required 24,000 years of clear tranquil tropical surf to form, not a one year succession of muddy tidal waves.

the many coral reefs and other complex geological features of Hawaii form grave difficulties for flood geology. For instance, a strata sequence exposed at sea level near Pearl Harbor (illustrated on page 84 of Steams' work) took many years to form, far too long for the Flood. This sequence contains reef limestone above sea level, which covers volcanic ash that had buried trees growing in place, which in turn covers another layer of reef limestone. Also, on page 21, Steams describes a core sample taken from a hole drilled 332 meters into the ground somewhere else in Pearl Harbor. This sample revealed 15 coral reefs separated by fossil soils, lignite (brown coal), and beach rock. Steams' example of ocean terraces will require some explanation.

Stacked above and below each other, ocean terraces look like steps in a staircase leading out of the sea. Each terrace represents an old shore line above or below current sea level; as the land and sea rise and fall, the surf cuts terraces at the different sea levels. Elevated and submerged terraces in Hawaii, New Guinea, Jamaica, and other tropical seacoasts often bear dead coral reefs (Goreau, 1979). Since many of these reefs took thousands of years to form, and since different terraces formed at different times, the stack as a whole took at least several times as long to form. Recorded history (which begins only a couple thousand years after the alleged Flood) knows no sea level changes amounting to hundreds of feet, so these terraces do not seem to fit very well into the postFlood period. These terraces look exactly like the kinds of reefs and beaches forming today, not like debris thrown together in some catastrophe like the Flood of Noah.

Stearns, reporting about the coral-bearing terraces of Hawaii in some detail, points out that many terraces contain fossil-bearing marine conglomerates. To the orthodox geologist, this is no surprise; river floods, land slides, storm waves, and turbidity flows are only a few of the processes known to bury and preserve animals and plants before they rot away so they can become fossils. However, the ICR creationists insist that no processes except for catastrophes the size of Noah's Flood can bury dead animals fast enough to fossilize. If this theory is correct, and if these conglomerates were formed in the Flood.

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 08 2005, 6:50 pm

Ok to begin with, your making a wild guest about the flood in the 1st place. Just because there was a huge flood, doesn't mean you get the condition your talking about.

The flood account says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and that great fountains from the deep burst forth water.

Now lets go over a new Theory about what happened. This was taken from a Scientific Creation site.

Hydroplate Theory, have you heard of this one? It goes like this.

Before the global flood, considerable water was under earths crust. Pressure increases in this subterranean water ruptured that crust, breaking it into plates. The escaping water flooded the earth. Because hydro means water, those crustal plates will be called hydroplates. Where they broke, how they moved, and hundreds of other details and evidenceall consistent with the laws of physicsconstitute the hydroplate theory and explain to a great extent why the earth looks as it does.

New evidence shows that the earth has experienced a devastating, worldwide flood, whose waters violently burst forth from under the earths crust. Standard textbook explanations for many of earths major features are scientifically flawed. We can now explain, using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Limestone
Metamorphic Rock
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets
Asteroids and Meteoroids

Each appears to be a consequence of a sudden and unrepeatable eventa global flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chambers with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 10 billion hydrogen bombs.

You can read the rest of it at the following link, they have a ton of detailed pictures too.  ;)

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 08 2005, 9:32 pm

Well that is one way to look at it, on the lighter side of things at least.  :laugh:

captJMK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 194

Report this Nov. 08 2005, 11:31 pm

oh thats all crap! The grand canyon was formed by the tiny little river that has been flowing through it for millions of years! No flood, even one that lasted 40 days and nights could or would have carved the Grand Canyon! If the flood was all powerful then why didnt it carve out the ENTIRE state of Arizona? Why did it ONLY carve out the exact area where the Colorado river just happened to be flowing through? And half of the OTHER stuff on your list like geothermics are caused by the FACT that the earth has a molten core and its crust is made up of continental plates. Any wonder that most of the worlds volcanos just HAPPEN to be located all along the edges of these plates? I especially like the last two on the list: Comets and Meteors...yeah those are definately the result of Noah's flood...doesnt matter by chance that they form off of the PLANET???

SirCedric2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Nov. 08 2005, 11:38 pm

Well that is why it's call a Theory, it's not a proven fact, just a guest at what could have happened.

Geeez.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum