A dilemma for flood geologists?

Current News and Links of interest

Moderator: News Editors

A dilemma for flood geologists?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:23 am

Please see my comment here just now, which I hope is self-explanatory.
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... ment-70819

The choice for the likes of Tas Walker and Elizabeth Mitchell seems to be:
(a) not cash in on a new discovery to say that "science is catching up with scripture" since the watery discovery is not precisely confirmation of what YECs were already claiming to be the case (regarding where the alleged floodwaters of Noah went afterwards) based on a single scripture verse;
(b) cash in on a new discovery to say that "science is catching up with scripture" by saying that the watery discovery adds to the evidence of what YECs were saying about where the floodwaters of Noah must have gone afterwards but that the scripture verse in question clearly has a wider meaning than that previously assumed;
(c) pretend not to notice the news report and say nothing (thus perhaps disappointing Sensuous Curmudgeon in the process, if they are aware of his post).

This is a Nature News article about the new Nature paper:
http://www.nature.com/news/tiny-diamond ... ref-link-1
And this is the Abstract of the actual paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 13080.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8165
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A dilemma for flood geologists?

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:40 pm

One of the Curmugeon's commenters points to an article with some more details. In brief, it suggests that even in creationist eyes it can answer only one part of the question: where the water went. Nothing about whence it came. Not, it would seem, the "fountains of the deep"
Plate tectonics recycles Earth's crust by pushing and pulling slabs of oceanic crust into subduction zones, where it sinks into the mantle. This crust, soaked by the ocean, ferries water into the mantle. Many of these slabs end up stuck in the mantle transition zone. "We think that a significant portion of the water in the mantle transition zone is from the emplacement of these slabs," Pearson said. "The transition zone seems to be a graveyard of subducted slabs."
And a graveyard of creationist nonsense when it's realised that the water is not present as a subterranean swimming pool. Which would, anyway, have to have been filled in about 1500 years of - extremely catastrophic subduction?http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4175
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

YEC temptation to make misleading claims: irresistible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:50 am

Email as sent:

"Please see my comments here and here in mid March:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... /#comments
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3464

I briefly set out my reasons as to why YECs might think BETTER of claiming that a recent discovery of much water apparently within Earth's mantle (or parts of it) was of some help to Young Earth Creationist flood geologists - and speculated that they might NOT use it to generate propaganda in favour of the opening chapters of the book of Genesis.

I was WRONG.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... nder-earth
"As we examine this discovery in light of the history of the global Flood documented in God’s Word, we see that water not only changes everything about the way a planet works in the present, but also about 4,300 years ago at the time of the global Flood. Dr. Snelling explains:
"What is the profound significance of this discovery? It confirms the capacity of the mantle to have housed the water that was released when the fountains of the great deep were broken up to commence the Flood, and the huge volume of water that was released through these fountains for as much as 150 days, providing more than enough water to help submerge the whole globe, just as described in Genesis 7:11–24.""

The next time a science-detesting YEC tells you that the waters of Noah's Flood drained into the (rapidly deepening post-flood!) oceans, tell them that Andrew Snelling says "oh no they didn't". Well, he FAILS also to mention that possibility in this new blog. According to him, they mostly 'returned' to Earth's mantle it would seem thus 'showing' him that Noah's worldwide flood 'could' have happened (as long as you assume an almost flat Earth 4,500 years ago allowing every speck of land to be submerged).

But how does this scenario fit with YEC interpretations of THIS version of Psalm 104:8, from the NASB (they claim that it was necessary for the - claimed 'shallow' early - oceans to suddenly be vastly deepened in order to 'house' the receding floodwaters)? "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down; To the place which You established for them."

AiG also seem to have a somewhat 'evolving' view of Genesis 7:11 given that they have previously tried to claim that the verse speaks of massive worldwide volcanism (because one of the many things erupted by volcanoes is steam - though of course many volcanoes are under the oceans anyway):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... waters.asp

I'm no Hebrew scholar but I have always argued that the wording in English of Genesis 7:11 suggests groundwater and perhaps earthquakes more than any 'massive worldwide volcanism'.

IF there is not enough water in Earth's mantle to produce (with a putative 40 days of rainfall as well) a global flood today (the Bible promises no more global floods after Noah's day besides even if there was a mechanism to get all this water to Earth's surface) then there almost certainly was NOT 4,500 years ago EITHER.

This by the way is the Abstract of the recent paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 13080.html
"The water-rich nature of this inclusion, indicated by infrared absorption, along with the preservation of the ringwoodite, is direct evidence that, at least locally, the transition zone is hydrous, to about 1 weight per cent".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8165
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: A dilemma for flood geologists?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:22 am

There's more here (I am about to post a detailed comment and will be very interested to read any Baker response):
http://questioninganswersingenesis.blog ... nt-of.html
Note that both the anti-YEC Christian and a YEC seem to be undermining the recent claims of Andrew Snelling of AiG viz "It confirms the capacity of the mantle to have housed the water that was released when the fountains of the great deep were broken up to commence the Flood, and the huge volume of water that was released through these fountains for as much as 150 days, providing more than enough water to help submerge the whole globe, just as described in Genesis 7:11–24." Not only could the water - even if there was ever enough of it for a global flood and I cannot say one way or the other - not get to the surface today, it could not have done so in the recent past either a la Genesis 7:11. And presumably surface waters from a worldwide flood or otherwise could not have got down to the lower mantle in the recent or distant past either.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8165
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

A dilemma for flood geologists?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:27 pm

NO dilemma for the ICR.

JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON (TWICE) AND LIE FOR JESUS.

http://www.icr.org/article/8197/
"These mantle waters could represent residual waters “of the great deep” that burst through the crust and onto Earth’s surface to initiate Noah’s year-long Flood, according to Genesis 7:11. Although some may suggest other explanations for the water, it complements Scripture’s general reference to waters deep beneath the earth."

What Thomas appears to mean is that another YEC (David Coppedge) has REFUTED the bogus previous claims of the ICR and AiG with respect to this news story.

Thomas is also a coward it would seem. He has IGNORED the following email as sent to the ICR and others two nights ago (some others DID comment and I responded):
"
http://www.icr.org/article/8174/
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/06 ... arian.html
Please would either Mr Thomas or Mr Sorensen or another person who thinks Earth is just 6,000 years old explain WHAT the paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters has actually got to do with the age of the Earth. I would dispute the claim of Mr Thomas "Why would she expect major earth movements to take thousands of years instead of the few dozen measured years? Could it be because of the relentless "old age" message she's undoubtedly heard from her textbooks and teachers all her life?" I would suggest that it is simply because of what has actually previously been observed.
I believe I may previously have commented on the ICR article here, when it first appeared earlier this year - but I cannot now relocate my comment so have asked the person who runs the site if he can locate it.
http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/
A change in the understandings obtained by conventional geology does not a drastic change (shortening) in the age of the Earth make. The YECs are I suggest either deluded or attempting to deceive. After all, even if this discovery is considered by them to offer some kind of succour, virtually everything else in geology - and other natural sciences - remains a massive problem for young Earth creationists (or indeed young Earth 'evolutionists' should such exist)."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8165
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to News and Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron