The Bible and the Ancient Earth

[teddyv]

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

The only reason to appeal to the water found in deep rocks is to add emphasis to the fact that the amount of water is nowhere near a problem for the global flood model.

I'm fine with that.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

The water stored in deep rocks is largely irrelevant if we permit the reasonable assumption that the massive forces invoked by a global flood had the power to reshape the surface of the earth. That would mean the amount of observed water currently stored in the world's oceans is more than sufficient to account for a global flood.

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption. There is no obvious evidence of these massive forces invoked by a global flood (and what are they?). The earth's geomorphological character is well established and observed through mundane tectonic and erosional forces.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

So on a somewhat irrelevant point - even if I did make the suggestion you claim (which I did not, but for the sake of argument, if I did), it would only “require” that some of the water be “recrystallized back in the mantle”. The original source of the water is immaterial. Given the extreme geological turmoil likely to have resulted from such a calamity, it is not a great leap of credulity to assume increased contact between water and molten rock – especially since we have found water locked away inside those rocks (so there must be some mechanism to accomplish this).

If you are claiming a naturalistic mechanism to the Flood, then you have to consider the source as well. You are again assuming some nebulous "geological turmoil" without anything to support that. If you don't know, that's fine, but it does not really give much weight to your model.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

I did not appeal to anyone else's “timeline”. I presented a crude argument based on two pieces of information derived from the Bible. I concluded it to be unlikely that humanity had spread across the “globe” in 14 generations given, a) a starting population of 3 reproducing couples in a primitive, post-flood world, and b) given the stated human tendency to congregate rather than disperse. Therefore, “all the nations/lands” (or “all the world”) spoken of in Genesis 41:57 would primarily be limited to peoples residing in the Middle East and Africa.

I know. Hence I did not want to assume anything. Ussher's is the timeline that AiG and ICR and CMI all rely on (and therefore most creationists). If you are not relying on that, then fine. Timeline has implications on this matter.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

“I don't have it at my hands, but I have heard whole world/earth interpretation could mean within the author/character's knowledge”

Which Author/author?

The Bible is God's Word. I would therefore not expect exaggerations rising to the level of error or deceit.

The authors of the Bible were subject to their own experiences and worldviews and audience. The Holy Spirit was not dictating scientific truths. Genesis was first and foremost written for the benefit of the early Israelites are they moved to possess Canaan. Coming from some 400 years in Egypt, they were probably very heavily influenced by the Egyptian worldviews. This needed remedying which was brilliantly accomplished in only a couple chapters.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is different to the above 'author limitation' claim.

This is more about context, and how much room for sensible, reasonable interpretation is permitted. For example, a king's claim to “rule over the whole earth” pertains to influence over humanity. It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to assume the author means authority extending to every known centre of human population (i.e. towns, cities and nations) – i.e. the king's authority extended to everywhere that humans had dispersed at the time. For example, if humans had not yet dispersed to the Americas, the king was still ruler “over the whole earth” - even though technically the king's influence did not really extend across the whole planet.

I think there is far less room for interpretation licence in Genesis 7-8; given that these passages are describing the natural extent of the flood (which is not limited by human dispersal). That is, the flood covered all the earth, including every high hill, and destroying all flesh. And God promises that such a disaster would never be repeated. The context therefore narrows the scope of credible interpretation. We would essentially be saying that - when God said, 'the flood covered all the earth, including every high hill, destroying all flesh', what He really meant was 'the flood covered only a region of the earth, including some local hills, and killed only those creatures in the vicinity'. And when God promised that such a flood would never happen again, what He really meant was, 'maybe there'll be some similar floods here and there'.

I'm personally not comfortable giving myself that much interpretation leeway. In fact I think that sets quite a dangerous hermeneutical precedent.

I believe in general revelation (created order) and special revelation (the Bible, mainly). I think we agree these can not conflict. As you can surmise, I would focus on geology and it's reconciliation with the Genesis narrative. With my education, experience, and actual physical, working knowledge within that field, it is abundantly clear that the earth is much older than what the young-earth creationists would say. Our reading of Genesis must be framed by original intent and audience, which is not us. Non-literalist interpretations have been common within Christianity since the early church. YEC, as it stands now, is a modern construct, based in interpreting the text within modernity and science which is a great irony.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

It is important that my catastrophic paradigm is recognised – because, as with all models, my model is only rationally obligated to be logically self-consistent. It would therefore be irrational to judge my model according to a contrary premise (such as uniformitarianism). As noted in my response to @Saved.One.by.Grace's comments, you have to be able to make that logical distinction before you can properly (objectively) consider the opposing perspective.

I recognize your paradigm or model, but it is lacking in presenting a cohesive, parsimonious explanation. Some models are better at explaining the evidence at hand. Most YEC theories still tend to be a haphazard, ad hoc, series of hypotheses that rarely get experimentally tested or verified by others, including 'secular' scientists. I don't know enough of your model to ascertain whether it has legitimate merit. And logically self-consistent must include consistency within physical and chemical constraints. 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

Yep – it is a developing model about an historical event we can not observe. Pretty-much all historical models have their challenges to overcome. Yours and my links both demonstrate that creationist scientists are honestly scrutinising and debating what has been proposed.

Yes, it is refreshing to see honest takes on the information. I hope they continue to do that.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

You are proposing to know what would be the outcome of events that were not scientifically observed – and for which the mechanisms are still being investigated/prposed. Have we even observed breccias forming – so that we can claim with scientific confidence to know how they form? Is there an upper limit to the fragment sizes produced by a rapid uplift event? Or is it possible that larger fragments were moved away from the site, or further fragmented before solidification so that they look like the breccias we commonly find? Is it possible that we simply have not found the relevant breccias yet because they remain hidden in the geology? Is it possible that you are wrong, and that such rapid uplift would not necessarily produce breccias? How rapid is 'rapid' (i.e. was the uplift sudden, or did it occur more slowly over the 300+ days of the flood) – and what impact would that have on breccia formation and heat distribution etc.?

This appears to be referring to the 'historical' versus 'operational' science matter? The following may not specifically address some of your questions above, but I think it important for context.

My main area of work is in exploration for mineral deposits. We can test the chemical reactions that dissolve and precipitate metals around in hydrothermal solutions. We can observe and test how pressure and thermal gradients move solutions around. We can measure isotope ratios and fugacity. We can observe these hydrothermal actions right now in the black smokers in the ocean (a colleague has observed the preserved remains of a black smoker). There is a gold deposit in Indonesia (I think) that is still precipitating gold while they mine it the upper reaches.

We can chemically determine the alteration patterns and how primary lithologies and minerals will react to pressure and temperature.  We can test rock mechanics in how they break and match that up to field observations. We can use the logical deduction of stratigraphic principles to untangle the history of the rocks. We can observe volcanoes and earthquakes which give us window into the tectonic forces of the planet. We can measure the ages of rocks using universal, physical properties of elements.

We can use these observations to examine those frozen in time past to determine their origin and formation. 

To answer some specific questions:

Is there an upper limit to the fragment sizes produced by a rapid uplift event? Or is it possible that larger fragments were moved away from the site, or further fragmented before solidification so that they look like the breccias we commonly find?

I am coming from the idea of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, which posit the current plate boundaries were formed during the Flood and were the likely conduits for the water from the 'fountains of the deep'. These would form the breccias - you could also consider kimberlite pipes as analogous as well. So this is not directly related to the mountain building and the questions you are asking here. That was erroneous on my part.

Most breccias are emplaced at depth during hydrothermal/tectonic action. Kimberlite diatremes are unusual in that they appear to have been sourced from very deep in the crust and may have erupted at surface, although my knowledge on that is getting pretty dated. Scale-wise, they can be several km's in dimensions. Fragment size would be dependent on the amount of movement of the material (it's essentially grinding up of the fragments).

Is it possible that we simply have not found the relevant breccias yet because they remain hidden in the geology?

It is possible, but unlikely. 

Is it possible that you are wrong, and that such rapid uplift would not necessarily produce breccias?

It's always possible that I am wrong. In all my years of work, I've never come across anything in any paper, that suggested that mountain building on the order of what you are proposing (e.g. rise of Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, etc.) was accomplished in 300 days or less.

How rapid is 'rapid' (i.e. was the uplift sudden, or did it occur more slowly over the 300+ days of the flood) – and what impact would that have on breccia formation and heat distribution etc.?

1 day versus 300 days is of no difference in rapidity. That is rapid, no matter how you cut it. The heat cause extensive crustal melting.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

Even if we had a complete, robust model that explained everything, that would not mean history necessarily happened that way (i.e. with applying the logic fallacy called Affirming the Consequent). That is simply the primary logical limitation of investigating the past. Likewise, current challenges to the model do not logically preclude the model from having the basics correct. Therefore, no one is obligated to your speculations regarding what we should “expect” to find. There are too many unknowns to justify that degree of confidence.

I'm trying to parse this. It seems that as a geologist, my speculations about geology have no real weight because of your claims that there are too many unknowns. As mentioned above, there is lots of observed and lab tested evidence to support what we see in the field. 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

“The energy dissipation issue is the main one to overcome. Unless you suspend physics”

Right – it's a challenge. But it does not logically necessitate that the model and it's fundamental premise is impossible.

Not impossible, but implausible.

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't know what your position is on Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry, but both of these models still face massive (maybe even physics suspending) challenges that are yet to be explained. Nevertheless, these models are not discarded. The challenges are merely considered to be things we have not figured out yet.

I don't have problems with either. I'm not an expert in either by any means. I'm not impressed with standard YEC claims of massive problems, because they are rarely engaging in the process anyway. If people want to criticize, then make sure they are not criticizing a strawman or outdated knowledge.

 

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't “need” to “access” anything. No one (to my knowledge) has claimed that the flood was sourced in water locked up in rocks. Though it is possible that some of the locked up water found its way into the rocks as a result of contact between flood water and molten rock. Though even that is unnecessary to account for the amount of water required for a global flood model.

Maybe you don't. Pretty sure they other creationists have. When these vast amounts of water were discovered in the mantle, the creationists were pretty excited. If I'm not mistaken, this may have been the impetus for the hydroplate theory (but it's been awhile).

12 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is specious – and irrelevant.

The facts were reported, and global-flood advocates noted that the reported facts fit readily into the global flood model. Or are we now prohibited from using publicly reported facts if we did not find them ourselves?

 

Of course not. Just an observation that little geological research has come from the YEC community. The main YEC geologists I know are Dr. Snelling and Dr. Austin. The former has undertaken research in the past, but it was written within conventional geology and geological timeline. Dr. Austin has obtained his degrees at various universities and I can only assume he has completed those dissertations within the standard framework. They have published papers within their own YEC journals. 

For the amount of money that AiG receives, I'd be more impressed if they used that to mainly fund research rather than build monuments to themselves.

 

Anyway, that was pile of things to go over and I was crafting this reply over the entire afternoon while trying to get other things done, so hopefully it's readable. Regardless, it's nice to talk bigger picture stuff in geology. So often we explorationists deal in the smaller-scale matters.

[Tristen]

On 12/5/2020 at 1:05 PM, teddyv said:

I'm fine with that.

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption. There is no obvious evidence of these massive forces invoked by a global flood (and what are they?). The earth's geomorphological character is well established and observed through mundane tectonic and erosional forces.

If you are claiming a naturalistic mechanism to the Flood, then you have to consider the source as well. You are again assuming some nebulous "geological turmoil" without anything to support that. If you don't know, that's fine, but it does not really give much weight to your model.

I know. Hence I did not want to assume anything. Ussher's is the timeline that AiG and ICR and CMI all rely on (and therefore most creationists). If you are not relying on that, then fine. Timeline has implications on this matter.

The authors of the Bible were subject to their own experiences and worldviews and audience. The Holy Spirit was not dictating scientific truths. Genesis was first and foremost written for the benefit of the early Israelites are they moved to possess Canaan. Coming from some 400 years in Egypt, they were probably very heavily influenced by the Egyptian worldviews. This needed remedying which was brilliantly accomplished in only a couple chapters.

I believe in general revelation (created order) and special revelation (the Bible, mainly). I think we agree these can not conflict. As you can surmise, I would focus on geology and it's reconciliation with the Genesis narrative. With my education, experience, and actual physical, working knowledge within that field, it is abundantly clear that the earth is much older than what the young-earth creationists would say. Our reading of Genesis must be framed by original intent and audience, which is not us. Non-literalist interpretations have been common within Christianity since the early church. YEC, as it stands now, is a modern construct, based in interpreting the text within modernity and science which is a great irony.

I recognize your paradigm or model, but it is lacking in presenting a cohesive, parsimonious explanation. Some models are better at explaining the evidence at hand. Most YEC theories still tend to be a haphazard, ad hoc, series of hypotheses that rarely get experimentally tested or verified by others, including 'secular' scientists. I don't know enough of your model to ascertain whether it has legitimate merit. And logically self-consistent must include consistency within physical and chemical constraints. 

Yes, it is refreshing to see honest takes on the information. I hope they continue to do that.

This appears to be referring to the 'historical' versus 'operational' science matter? The following may not specifically address some of your questions above, but I think it important for context.

My main area of work is in exploration for mineral deposits. We can test the chemical reactions that dissolve and precipitate metals around in hydrothermal solutions. We can observe and test how pressure and thermal gradients move solutions around. We can measure isotope ratios and fugacity. We can observe these hydrothermal actions right now in the black smokers in the ocean (a colleague has observed the preserved remains of a black smoker). There is a gold deposit in Indonesia (I think) that is still precipitating gold while they mine it the upper reaches.

We can chemically determine the alteration patterns and how primary lithologies and minerals will react to pressure and temperature.  We can test rock mechanics in how they break and match that up to field observations. We can use the logical deduction of stratigraphic principles to untangle the history of the rocks. We can observe volcanoes and earthquakes which give us window into the tectonic forces of the planet. We can measure the ages of rocks using universal, physical properties of elements.

We can use these observations to examine those frozen in time past to determine their origin and formation. 

To answer some specific questions:

Is there an upper limit to the fragment sizes produced by a rapid uplift event? Or is it possible that larger fragments were moved away from the site, or further fragmented before solidification so that they look like the breccias we commonly find?

I am coming from the idea of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, which posit the current plate boundaries were formed during the Flood and were the likely conduits for the water from the 'fountains of the deep'. These would form the breccias - you could also consider kimberlite pipes as analogous as well. So this is not directly related to the mountain building and the questions you are asking here. That was erroneous on my part.

Most breccias are emplaced at depth during hydrothermal/tectonic action. Kimberlite diatremes are unusual in that they appear to have been sourced from very deep in the crust and may have erupted at surface, although my knowledge on that is getting pretty dated. Scale-wise, they can be several km's in dimensions. Fragment size would be dependent on the amount of movement of the material (it's essentially grinding up of the fragments).

Is it possible that we simply have not found the relevant breccias yet because they remain hidden in the geology?

It is possible, but unlikely. 

Is it possible that you are wrong, and that such rapid uplift would not necessarily produce breccias?

It's always possible that I am wrong. In all my years of work, I've never come across anything in any paper, that suggested that mountain building on the order of what you are proposing (e.g. rise of Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, etc.) was accomplished in 300 days or less.

How rapid is 'rapid' (i.e. was the uplift sudden, or did it occur more slowly over the 300+ days of the flood) – and what impact would that have on breccia formation and heat distribution etc.?

1 day versus 300 days is of no difference in rapidity. That is rapid, no matter how you cut it. The heat cause extensive crustal melting.

I'm trying to parse this. It seems that as a geologist, my speculations about geology have no real weight because of your claims that there are too many unknowns. As mentioned above, there is lots of observed and lab tested evidence to support what we see in the field. 

Not impossible, but implausible.

I don't have problems with either. I'm not an expert in either by any means. I'm not impressed with standard YEC claims of massive problems, because they are rarely engaging in the process anyway. If people want to criticize, then make sure they are not criticizing a strawman or outdated knowledge.

 

Maybe you don't. Pretty sure they other creationists have. When these vast amounts of water were discovered in the mantle, the creationists were pretty excited. If I'm not mistaken, this may have been the impetus for the hydroplate theory (but it's been awhile).

Of course not. Just an observation that little geological research has come from the YEC community. The main YEC geologists I know are Dr. Snelling and Dr. Austin. The former has undertaken research in the past, but it was written within conventional geology and geological timeline. Dr. Austin has obtained his degrees at various universities and I can only assume he has completed those dissertations within the standard framework. They have published papers within their own YEC journals. 

For the amount of money that AiG receives, I'd be more impressed if they used that to mainly fund research rather than build monuments to themselves.

 

Anyway, that was pile of things to go over and I was crafting this reply over the entire afternoon while trying to get other things done, so hopefully it's readable. Regardless, it's nice to talk bigger picture stuff in geology. So often we explorationists deal in the smaller-scale matters.

“I don't see this as a reasonable assumption. There is no obvious evidence of these massive forces invoked by a global flood (and what are they?). The earth's geomorphological character is well established and observed through mundane tectonic and erosional forces”

All this means in basic terms is that you have a story built around interpreting the facts through the lens of the uniformitarian assumption. You talk about “no obvious evidence”, but that is a statement of subjective bias. There are an abundance of facts that can be interpreted to be consistent with a global flood in the Biblical time frame (i.e. mostly the very same facts used to generate the secular story). It's simply a matter of interpreting the very same facts through the lens of Biblical catastrophism. With few exceptions, even the cemented matrix of breccias (commonly found globally), indicates that they formed in the presence of water.

I'm therefore not rationally obliged to accept rhetorical descriptions of the “earth's geomorphological character” being “well established”. I understand that you have a story. And I do not contest that your preferred story qualifies as rational. However the story is only rational, given the validity of the unverifiable, uniformitarian premise. If you start from a different unverifiable premise (e.g. that the Word of God is true when interpreted at face value), then different interpretations of the same facts ensue to generate a different story.

 

“If you are claiming a naturalistic mechanism to the Flood, then you have to consider the source as well”

But I do not have to consider “the source” of the flood in relation to water found locked in deep rocks.

I do not know how to go back in time and observe the pre-flood geology – i.e. to ascertain exactly what God meant by “all the fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11). I would assume at face-value that it refers to subterranean reservoirs of water. What do you think it means? I note that “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up” - indicating that they may no longer exist; at least not in their original configurations. Nevertheless, large, pressurised, underground sources of water are hardly rare.

Furthermore, the Bible (the foundation of my preferred model) states that the flood was a supernaturally initiated event. Mentioning “all the fountains of the great deep” would indicate that such sources pre-existed the flood. But I have no problem claiming that God started the flood – because that is what my model states – i.e. the flood was a judgement of God, and not a random natural event. So I am not tied to “a naturalistic mechanism” to explain the whole model – but neither do I appeal to a God-of-the-gaps argument when the Bible is not explicit about God's involvement.

“You are again assuming some nebulous "geological turmoil" without anything to support that”

I do not think that is fair – especially given that the only “support” you've provided for your position is the absence of an evidence (a.k.a. a technical Appeal to Ignorance fallacy).

Yes – I have only provided a basic, concise summary of a more complex model because I was only addressing the basic question regarding the amount of water required for a global flood. We can, if you like, start going through the copious amounts of geological observations and discuss how they can be interpreted to fit the global flood model. I thought such an exhaustive, in-depth discussion of geology might be beyond the scope and intent of this thread.

 

“If you don't know, that's fine, but it does not really give much weight to your model”

Again, this lacks fair-mindedness. You have only provided a 'lack of evidence' argument and some rhetorical bluster about your model being “well established”. So your attempted Innuendo (fallacy) about a lack of provided support works both ways..

 

“I did not want to assume anything. Ussher's is the timeline that AiG and ICR and CMI all rely on (and therefore most creationists). If you are not relying on that, then fine. Timeline has implications on this matter”

I estimate that the flood happened ~ 4,300-4,400 years ago (around 2,300BC).

 

“The authors of the Bible were subject to their own experiences and worldviews and audience. The Holy Spirit was not dictating scientific truths. Genesis was first and foremost written for the benefit of the early Israelites are they moved to possess Canaan. Coming from some 400 years in Egypt, they were probably very heavily influenced by the Egyptian worldviews. This needed remedying which was brilliantly accomplished in only a couple chapters”

So God “brilliantly” lied to them?

 

“With my education, experience, and actual physical, working knowledge within that field, it is abundantly clear that the earth is much older than what the young-earth creationists would say”

This is an Appeal to Authority/Expertise (fallacy).

Firstly, none of this means anything without a supporting argument to justify your confidence claim regarding what is “abundantly clear”.

Secondly, there are many highly credentialed geologists and geophysicists who are also “young-earth creationists”.

So even if I was prone to falling for your fallacy, it would still be your word against theirs. But if I see through your fallacy, your expertise is only relevant to the degree that you provide supporting arguments for your claims.

 

“Our reading of Genesis must be framed by original intent and audience, which is not us”

So I can dismiss Genesis from all consideration – since you say it's “not” for me? Maybe it was a mistake inclusion in my Bible. And after all, it's really just God being deceitful anyway – because He could not be bothered to explain to such primitive minds what really happened.

 

“Non-literalist interpretations have been common within Christianity since the early church”

This is somewhat slippery language. Until secularists such as Darwin, Hutton and Lyell, very few (if any) Christians adhered to an 'old earth' interpretation of Genesis.

But either way, I will only ever be accountable to God for how I interpret His Word. It is my job to search out the truth and seek God's intended meaning – regardless of the conclusions of others. And thus far, I have found no objective reason (in either logic or science) to think Genesis means anything other than what it says.

 

“YEC, as it stands now, is a modern construct, based in interpreting the text within modernity and science which is a great irony”

Again, this is slippery wording. And again, until the likes of Darwin, Hutton and Lyell, no Christian of note questioned the credulity of the Genesis time line – as written. The more famous examples of Christians adopting allegorical interpretations of Genesis taught their allegory in addition to their historical interpretation – and not as a replacement of historical Genesis.

So it is true that “YEC, as it stands now” is somewhat “modern” - in the sense that organisations now exist to defend the traditional, and most straight forward, interpretation of Genesis from its “modern” detractors. But what we now call “YEC” has always been the consensus, default interpretation of Genesis until the rise and popularity of secular ideas.

And what is the “great irony”? Do you see how you use Innuendo (in place of rational argument) in an attempt to posture your position as automatically superior?

 

“I recognize your paradigm or model, but it is lacking in presenting a cohesive, parsimonious explanation. Some models are better at explaining the evidence at hand. Most YEC theories still tend to be a haphazard, ad hoc, series of hypotheses that rarely get experimentally tested or verified by others, including 'secular' scientists”

This is more empty propaganda. You give yourself permission to simply state that yours is better than mine – then expect me to slap myself on the forehead and exclaim; “Well it must be true!!! I mean … since you said it!!! What-ever was I thinking?”.

 

“And logically self-consistent must include consistency within physical and chemical constraints”

That's not logically accurate.

But how this relates to our conversation so far - challenges to models based on current knowledge of “physical and chemical constraints” never warrants an outright dismissal of the whole model. At least that is the rule when secular models face such challenges. In those cases we just assume that we currently lack the information we need to overcome the challenge (which may be true, or may not be true – this is not me criticising the process). As with secular models, I retain the rational right to claim I don't know the answer to something – without any reasonable, rational risk to my model loosing all credulity.

I don't know your position on Standard Cosmology or Common Ancestry – but these models have faced, and still face, some seemingly insurmountable problems. Historically, they are not auto-rejected on that basis. They just wait around for how-ever long it takes for some clever person to imagine a solution to each challenge.

 

“Yes, it is refreshing to see honest takes on the information. I hope they continue to do that”

And yet more Innuendo in place of rational argument.

 

“This appears to be referring to the 'historical' versus 'operational' science matter?”

You initially suggested that my position could be disregarded because we have not found the specific constitution of breccias that you would expect to find if my position was correct. I asked some questions to examine whether or not your high confidence in this expectation was justified.

For example, I asked if we had observed breccias forming (I honestly don't know the answer). If the answer is yes, then it raises questions like, 1) Can we extend that observation to all such events so as to claim that all such events necessarily leave these kinds of breccias for us to find, and 2) Can we assume this observation to be scalable – such that a larger-scale, rapid event necessarily leaves behind the types of breccias you claim to expect? These questions (and their legitimate answers) demonstrate that your claim incorporates quite a bit of assumption – which mitigates justifiable confidence.

If the answer is no, then the whole explanation of how breccias form is relegated to the category of; this is just the best story we have so far to explain breccia formation - which could be completely wrong.

And then there's the fact that arguments based on 'lack of evidence' are examples of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy,

So either way, your high confidence that my my position should be disregarded because of this lack of evidence is not justified by observation. You may be right, but given the degree of assumption required, no one is rationally obligated to fall in line with your position.

 

“It's always possible that I am wrong. In all my years of work, I've never come across anything in any paper, that suggested that mountain building on the order of what you are proposing (e.g. rise of Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, etc.) was accomplished in 300 days or less”

Right – there is probably no such "paper" because secular geology interprets the facts through the lens of the uniformitarian assumption. So this doesn't actually mean anything except that the resulting interpretation is dependent upon the starting paradigm of the interpreter. And that the preferred starting paradigm of secular geology is uniformitarian and philosophical naturalism.

 

“1 day versus 300 days is of no difference in rapidity”

That is self-evidently untrue. They may be insignificant relative to the long-age time frame, but relative to each other, they are 300 orders of magnitude different from each other. And therefore may be affected by different factors, and leaving behind different geological markers.

 

“The heat cause extensive crustal melting”

It is reasonable to assume there would be a difference in the effect. And what if there were multiple smaller uplifts instead of a single large uplift?

 

“I'm trying to parse this. It seems that as a geologist, my speculations about geology have no real weight because of your claims that there are too many unknowns. As mentioned above, there is lots of observed and lab tested evidence to support what we see in the field”

There is a difference between observing something in a lab, and using those results to infer a story about what historical events produced field observations. That is, observing something in a lab is not the same as observing history. You may assume one to be a proxy of the other, but that is an unverifiable assumption.

Regardless of “geologist” credentials, no “speculations” about geological history have any objectively quantifiable “weight” - because they are not based in direct observations of the putative history being claimed. That is, the lab experiments do not directly test the history of the geological structures – only the operating physics and chemistry of what is being experimented upon.

In a lab, we can directly test a hypothesis about how the natural world works (in the present) – generating precise mathematical confidence from the experimental results. We can not, however, test whether one story of history produced the observed natural structures – i.e. as opposed to a competing story, or an as-yet unknown story.

Note: this is not a criticism of the historical method – only a recognition of it's logical limitations.

Primary confidence in historical models requires that we Affirm the Consequent (fallacy). i.e;

- If model A is true, then fact 1 will be observed

- Fact 1 is observed, therefore model A is true

But what if a different story/model could also produce fact 1? Then the presence of fact 1 does not necessitate model A. That demonstrates the fallacy required to claim primary confidence in any historical model. And that is why confidence in historical models can only ever be legitimately anecdotal. And that is also why no one is ever logically obligated to any claim of history (including  your requirement of finding a specific type of breccia to account for rapid uplift).

 

“I'm not impressed with standard YEC claims of massive problems, because they are rarely engaging in the process anyway”

I think this is yet another use of empty Innuendo used to divert from the point. I don't know what a “standard YEC claim” means. I'm talking about the challenges with secular models that are well recognised and discussed in secular scientific literature and forums.

I find it astonishingly naive that a professional scientists is unaware that these models both currently face, and have historically faced, substantial challenges since their inceptions.

 

“If people want to criticize, then make sure they are not criticizing a strawman or outdated knowledge”

My point is that an unsolved challenge to a model has never warranted the outright rejection of that model. At least not for the secular models. Or perhaps the rules are different with models that oppose the allegedly “well established” secular paradigm.

To logically demonstrate my point, I can use old (i.e. "outdated") or existing challenges. Even if a solution now exists, the fact that there was a point in time with no solution, and the model was not rejected, makes my point.

Even if you have a Polyanna view of secular models, and are seriously unaware that they face challenges, the rational response would have been to ask for examples so you could consider my point. Instead you chose to make generalised, unsupported innuendoes about creationists not “engaging” blah, blah, blah, rinse and repeat etc.

 

“Maybe you don't. Pretty sure they other creationists have. When these vast amounts of water were discovered in the mantle, the creationists were pretty excited”

I'm only prepared to be accountable for my own stated position. I do not consider myself responsible to defend every claim that every self-professed creationist has ever presented.

 

“Just an observation that little geological research has come from the YEC community”

I don't really know how you are quantifying that. It's obviously a much smaller cross-section of the larger scientific community with limited resources.

 

“The main YEC geologists I know are Dr. Snelling and Dr. Austin”

I'm not overly familiar with them – though I've probably read some of their articles. There are many other geologists that contribute to creationist literature.

 

“The former has undertaken research in the past, but it was written within conventional geology and geological timeline”

Assuming this is accurate, it could mean many things. It could mean that he did that research before becoming a creationist. Or it could mean that he simply stated the implications of his research for the secular models – since you don't have to agree with a model to understand it – and since it is very unlikely that a paper containing stated implications for creationist models would get published in a secular science journal. Or it could mean his research was irrelevant to either model of the past – since not all “conventional geology” is about investigating the past.

 

“Dr. Austin has obtained his degrees at various universities and I can only assume he has completed those dissertations within the standard framework”

Why would anyone “assume” otherwise – except to insinuate the lack of validity of his credentials because you are not comfortable with an educated person disagreeing with the secular narrative – which you consider to be so “well established” that there is no room for informed, educated dissent.

 

“They have published papers within their own YEC journals”

You mean within peer-reviewed creationist journals? Or do they publish their own journals?

 

“For the amount of money that AiG receives, I'd be more impressed if they used that to mainly fund research rather than build monuments to themselves”

Agh! - yet more empty Innuendo.

I'm not overly familiar with “AiG” either; or how much “money” they receive. My suspicion is that they are ministry focussed rather than research focussed. We must all do what God calls us to do – regardless of the expectations of others.

 

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

So God “brilliantly” lied to them?

I'm done with you.

[The Barbarian]

On 12/4/2020 at 9:05 PM, teddyv said:

It's always possible that I am wrong. In all my years of work, I've never come across anything in any paper, that suggested that mountain building on the order of what you are proposing (e.g. rise of Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, etc.) was accomplished in 300 days or less.

And the physics of such a change would require some explanation as to how the huge amount of thermal energy that would be generated by such movement could be removed without melting the crust.

 

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And the physics of such a change would require some explanation as to how the huge amount of thermal energy that would be generated by such movement could be removed without melting the crust.

 

Yes, if you presume the Earth was as it is today, it would be a problem.   But not if the large mountain ranges came after the flood as the Bible claims it did. 

Most of the water from the flood came from under the crust, not just as rain.  That water is still here today, in the form of oceans.  It seems God was shuffling things around to make what we see today, after the flood.

Psalm 104: 6-9 (NLT)

You clothed the earth with floods of water,
    water that covered even the mountains.
⁷ At your command, the water fled;
    at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.
⁸ Mountains rose and valleys sank
    to the levels you decreed.
⁹ Then you set a firm boundary for the seas,
    so they would never again cover the earth.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Yes, if you presume the Earth was as it is today, it would be a problem.   But not if the large mountain ranges came after the flood as the Bible claims it did. 

Most of the water from the flood came from under the crust, not just as rain.  That water is still here today, in the form of oceans.  It seems God was shuffling things around to make what we see today, after the flood.

Psalm 104: 6-9 (NLT)

You clothed the earth with floods of water,
    water that covered even the mountains.
⁷ At your command, the water fled;
    at the sound of your thunder, it hurried away.
⁸ Mountains rose and valleys sank
    to the levels you decreed.
⁹ Then you set a firm boundary for the seas,
    so they would never again cover the earth.

That psalm is a retelling of the Creation story, not Noah's Flood.

[The Barbarian]

And the physics of such a change would require some explanation as to how the huge amount of thermal energy that would be generated by such movement could be removed without melting the crust.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Yes, if you presume the Earth was as it is today, it would be a problem.   But not if the large mountain ranges came after the flood as the Bible claims it did.

No.   The laws of thermodynamics still would apply.   The sudden piling up of coastal crust and the folding and distortion of those rocks would produce enough heat to melt them.    Doesn't matter when it happens.

Would you like to see some numbers?

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Most of the water from the flood came from under the crust, not just as rain.  That water is still here today, in the form of oceans.  It seems God was shuffling things around to make what we see today, after the flood.

No, that's wrong, too.   The oceans preceded Noah, if we can believe what God says in scripture.   

[Sparks]

52 minutes ago, teddyv said:

That psalm is a retelling of the Creation story, not Noah's Flood.

If this were true, then why does this Psalm mention things like Lebanon, ships and sinners?

35 Let all sinners vanish from the face of the earth; let the wicked disappear forever.

I guess the Earth had a real sinner problem, on day 3?  Ships sailing everywhere, before man hit the scene? 

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

If this were true, then why does this Psalm mention things like Lebanon, ships and sinners?

35 Let all sinners vanish from the face of the earth; let the wicked disappear forever.

I guess the Earth had a real sinner problem, on day 3?  Ships sailing everywhere, before man hit the scene? 

Look at the language of the various versus - references to the various created elements of the days - the waters, the sky, the earth (dry land) and the objects (moon) and creatures (birds, fish, land animals) that inhabit each of the those environments.

Since this is written long after creation (no matter how one views it) the author is just reflecting on observations of creation intertwined with the Creation narrative.

The main connection to the Flood would be the part you quoted initially (v6-9) but it does not seem to flow within the overall structure of the psalm. It looks to refer to the separation of the dry land from the waters. After that section, why talk about the moon and sun marking the seasons after this as well? That's right out of the Creation narrative.

That said, I did review some commentary and see that others do agree with your view of that particular section, but overall the psalm is recognized as primarily incorporating the creation narrative.

Verse 35 is a sentiment echoed all over the psalms and other parts of the Bible. I can see how one would  make a connection there to the Flood.

[Sparks]

8 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Since this is written long after creation (no matter how one views it) the author is just reflecting on observations of creation intertwined with the Creation narrative.

Sorry, but this Psalm is about the flood.