Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Muscat <stevomuscat@...>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???
> OK......the thing I want to know is, now please be bluntly honest
> here.....is there ANY evidence in the geological column/ fossil record to
> show a global flood/ catastrphic event?
How about the existence of the fossil record. The geological column was
invented by Charles Lyell in 1830 in an attempt to explain away the evidence
for a global flood as an extension of James Hutton's theory of
uniformitarianism. Before this scientists explained the rock layers and
fossils in terms of the Flood. By the way the invention of uniformitarianism
was predicted by II Peter 3:3-6.
3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts,
4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
So in their effort to discount the Bible, they succeeded if fulfilling it.
- Mark,Mark writes: Notice the part that clearly says "cursed is the ground for thy sake". Clearly the ground was and is cursed after Adam's sin,which implies that it was NOT cursed before this time frame or this passage would mean nothing.Therefore, the uniformitarian view, from where the OE view arises, is learly not compatible with scripture.The natural laws on some level must have changed for land that was not cursed prior to now be cursed.My response: Please explain to me how the curse of the ground leads into the conclusion that the natural laws changed. That seems completely illogical to me. The ground qualifies as a "material possession" that can be corrupted through man's sin. The natural laws do not change when the ground becomes wretched, and no where does the passage cited even suggest this.Mark writes: Therefore, one can not honestly in his heart call himself as child of God and hold to an OE view for it clearly is not written.My response: It seems to me that I and many other OECs disprove your conclusion. Please refer to my post in which I talk about brotherly love...Thank you for your time,Matthew----- Original Message -----From: KRINKS@...Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 10:03 PMTo: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.comSubject: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???
Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of
Notice the part that clearly says "cursed is the ground for thy
sake". Clearly the ground was and is cursed after Adam's sin,which
implies that it was NOT cursed before this time frame or this passage
would mean nothing.Therefore, the uniformitarian view, from where the
OE view arises, is clearly not compatible with scripture.The natural
laws on some level must have changed for land that was not cursed
prior to now be cursed.Therefore, one can not honestly in his heart
call himself as child of God and hold to an OE view for it clearly is
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
- In a message dated 8/30/01 10:55:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
It was a great deal of the "little things" which young-earth
creationism overwhelmingly failed to answer.
I won't fail to answer, try them on me
- AJ - You will have to forgive my delays in response. I
had hand surgery last week, and typing must be minimal
for the moment, but I will want to further discuss the
complexity of the geological column, and the
difficulties with the single flood interpretation..
--- AJ Miner <miner1955@...> wrote:
> It is funny you say this, because when I look at theThe deposits beneath our feet are not obvious in
> world around me, the
> world is clearly older than 10,000 years old and did
> not suffer from a
> worldwide deluge.
garden states like the pacific northwest where
biological recovery has been successful, but further
south in Utah, New Mexico (where I grew up), and
Arizona all you see around you is a massive flood
wasteland. New Mexico contains numerous monuments to
the flood such as tremendous caverns and evaporite
deposits (White Sands). Utah is almost nothing but
> The world is not "covered in flood sediment".It is common knowledge that the entire world is
> Doubtless there are sediments
> that are the results of at least localized floods,
> but floods are not
> responsible for many sediment formations at all.
covered in sediment. Every geologist knows it, and
every geology text book contains maps that show what
layers are exposed in various regions.
National Geologic Map Database
Except where erosion and uplift has removed these
deposits there is not one square inch that is not
covered in thick layers of sediment. In most areas,
they are hundreds of feet thick and in others they
The paradox lies with the fact that current
depositionary mechanisms that reach high volumes are
localized, and yet everywhere we look there are
hundreds of feet of sediment stretched out into vast
Every continent exists as plateaus that has been
deformed by uplift and erosion, and every plateau is a
flood plain. The continents exist as flood plains
possessing unspeakable volumes of flood deposits that
stretch from one shore to the other..
These deposits and the existence of modern terrestrial
life remains a paradox. Every square inch of the
planet was covered by sandstone, limestone, and shale,
and yet they must claim there was no global flood
because animals remain...
Creation Science Resource
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
- In a message dated 8/30/01 3:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
This argument is interesting because it demonstrates how susceptible YECs
are to inconsistencies. YEC's usually argue against uniformitarianism and
favor of catastrophism, but with C14, YECs do the exact opposite. They
that the rate of the creation of C14 in the atmosphere is absolutely
uniform. Ironically, the opposite is true. Scientists have shown the rate
C14 creation has fluctuated significantly. Here is a quote from a
"The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic
rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the
Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples
of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's
magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring
calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen
Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon
dates." In essence, fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field alters the
rate of creation of C14. This has been proven with analysis of tree rings
going back 9,000 years.
The C14 in the atmosphere is supposed to have reached equalibrium long
ago. It apparently has not because the earth is young. the earths magnetic
field is slowly declining in strength and although the rate might vary
slightly it is fairly uniform and at the current rate if we went back say a
million years or so it would have been strong enough to generate heat intense
enough to make life impossible. I'm writing this from memory, but if you need
me to be more specific I will have to research it.