What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch

turnorburn

turnorburn

Member
noahs_ark-2.jpg


The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch
©1966 by Donald W. Patten

It is over and against the prevailing monopoly of uniformitarian thought (which proposes that oceans of time are necessary for anything and everything, both geologically and biologically) that Mr. Patten proposes his view of historical celestial crises, global catastrophes. Such catastrophes may explain many features about several planets. Such catastrophes, relative to the Earth-Moon system, explain the raising up of mountain ranges, sweeping across the face of the Earth in arcuate alignment, similar to the mountain patterns of the Moon.

This was achieved suddenly, and by tidal upheavals within oceans (of centrifugally rotating lava) within the Earth's crust. Simultaneously, tidal upheavals engulfing the oceans raised tides of subcontinental dimensions on the Earth's crust, thus the historically recorded Deluge, or Flood.

This classic work is now on-line - in its entirety!

http://www.creationism.org/patten/

turnorburn

Mr. Patten lived just up the street from us in 1972..
 
Obviously,when a comet or asteroid hit the earth at the K-T period, this brought very rapid changes to the planet. However, before accepting Mr. Patten's hypothesis, I would want to see his peer-reviewed publications on the topic.
 
The biggest problem with Patten's theory of galloping continents is the heat problem. The energy would have to be absorbed to rapidly slow them after they got where Patten wants them to go. And in that short a period of time, it would have boiled the oceans.

So scientists are understandably skeptical of the story.
 
Yeah, this is the same error as before, trying to create a mechanism that supports an already held conclusion [of a global flood]. Too many problems stand in the way, thus you have people believing that moutains and land masses HAD to have been moved quickly. Unfortunately, it creates more problems than what's trying to be solved.
 
Deavonreye said:
Yeah, this is the same error as before, trying to create a mechanism that supports an already held conclusion [of a global flood]. Too many problems stand in the way, thus you have people believing that moutains and land masses HAD to have been moved quickly. Unfortunately, it creates more problems than what's trying to be solved.
Click to expand...

A previously held conclusion or an hypothesis. It matters not.

The fact is, a deluge of the magnitude described in the Bible (and many other ancient texts) could cause many if not all of the geological formations (including the stratigraphic layers) over a short period of time compared to to science's majority opinion that it was lots of time and relatively small amounts of water and flash floods. So, for the pedantic, your mission is to test THAT hypothesis without YOUR biases.

Oh, here is a fun fact that cannot be disputed:

In the book of Genesis (allegedly 6,000 years ago) there is a geologic description of the early world. Within it, are described four rivers: Tigres, Euphrates, Pison, and Gihon. The first two everyone knows about. The second two however don't exist.
The Bible must be wrong, right?

There are satellite images where they have found the now fossilized remains of those rivers exactly where the Bible said they were in relation to Tigres and Euphrates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ashua, . . . hydro-sorting does not and CAN not account for the layers found. There is a simple experiment that anyone can do. Find various types of soil, put them in a clear tank filled with water, mix them all up [which would be what would have happened during a flood]. Wait unitl the layers settle. Tell me what you find? You'll find the heavier objects on the bottom, all the way up to the lightest.

That ISN'T how the geologic table is sorted in the real world. Do the same experiment. Pour a specific weight of material in. Wait for it to settle. . . . Pour in another weight of material [doesn't matter whether heavier or lighter]. Wait. . . . Repeat this, varying the weight of the material. Tell me what you find? You'll find something very similar to how geologic layers are layed out. You will have specific layers. Light ones under heavy ones, under medium weight ones, under heavy ones, under light ones, under heavy ones, etc.

This isn't religion. It is "see it with your own eyes" scientific experimentation. . . and what the geologic record shows. They also show coral reefs under other layers well above sea level. You cannot get a coral reef outside of them forming at the shallows of oceans, and they take a long time to form. Yet, they are under rock formations, sand formations, . . .

There are even some coral reefs in desert areas. Others in areas with old growth forests growing over them. That doesn't happen as a result of a global flood.

These aren't based upon "bias". "Bias" has no place in real scientific discovery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Deavonreye said:
Ashua, . . . hydro-sorting does not and CAN not account for the layers found. There is a simple experiment that anyone can do. Find various types of soil, put them in a clear tank, mix them all up [which would be what would have happened during a flood]. Wait unitl the layers settle. Tell me what you find? You'll find the heavier objects on the bottom, all the way up to the lightest.

That ISN'T how the geologic table is sorted in the real world. Do the same experiment. Pour a specific weight of material in. Wait. . . . Pour in another weight of material [doesn't matter whether heavier or lighter]. Wait. . . . Repeat this, varying the weight of the material. Tell me what you find? You'll find something very similar to how geologic layers are layed out. You will have specific layers. Light ones under heavy ones, under medium weight ones, under heavy ones, under light ones, under heavy ones, etc.

This isn't religion. It is "see it with your own eyes" scientific experimentation. . . and what the geologic record shows. They also show coral reefs under other layers well above sea level. You cannot get a coral reef outside of them forming at the shallows of oceans, and they take a long time to form. Yet, they are under rock formations, sand formations, . . .

There are even some coral reefs in desert areas. Some with old growth forests growing over them. That doesn't happen as a result of a global flood.

These aren't based upon "bias". "Bias" has no place in real scientific discovery.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why the grand canyon can form despite the colorado river being some 4,000 feet below the canyon.

In the "real world" the geologic column doesn't exist on any place on Earth with more than 5 layers occurring in "correct" sequential order"
 
The Grand Canyon area has risen for millions of years due to plate techtonics. It is the same thing that causes shell and other aquatic life to be found in the geologic strata well above sea level.

I'm not sure where you get your "only 5 layers" from. I've seen MANY more than that.
 
Ashua said:
Which is precisely why the grand canyon can form despite the colorado river being some 4,000 feet below the canyon.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean that the bottom of the river gorge is lower than the surrounding cliffs and high ground. This is a not uncommon occurrence, in fact I live at the end of a much smaller gorge where the river is lower than the surrounding cliffs and high ground. Do you imagine that this also is in some way evidence of a global flood of biblical proportions some 4,500 years ago?
In the "real world" the geologic column doesn't exist on any place on Earth with more than 5 layers occurring in "correct" sequential order"
Click to expand...
Actually there are many places where most or all of the geologic column is present, as creationist Harold Clark acknowledged as long ago as 1968 (Clark, H.W., Fossils, Flood, and Fire). Glenn Morton lists 26 basins where the geologic column exists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turnorburn said:
As far as fossils go the scientists carbon tested a mollusk, they said 60,000 years old,
yet the mollusk was alive for the test..

turnorburn
Click to expand...

You need to stop refering to Hovind style "arguments". Such "arguments" are often proven to be lacking in scientific understanding. Do a search on this as it has been countered before. Mollusks build their shell from the surrounding environment and are such inappropriate to use Carbon dating on. Creationists like to USE this deception because they usually go into churches, with people who already hold the same conclusion of the speaker, and are more open to accept this "psuedo-scientific date bashing".
 
gotta trust them honest scientists too like that recent one that guy.

hmm something about that autism being caused about by shots or those honest scientists that fudged for evolution too.

yup honesty a good thing.

this is a recent one but there are others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

and there are some others. so it happens on the other side
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing is that other scientists debunked that guy. That is how science works.

the answer to bad science is not: More Religion! It's: Better Science!

That's why peer-review is so important; Other scientists can test the theories and see if they hold water. if they don't, (like the flu-shot guy), those ideas are weeded-out.
 
The thing is that other scientists debunked that guy. That is how science works.

the answer to bad science is not: More Religion! It's: Better Science!

That's why peer-review is so important; Other scientists can test the theories and see if they hold water. if they don't, (like the flu-shot guy), those ideas are weeded-out.
 
i know that but in my conversations with my friend who did teach biology and others related fields , it was discouraged to look at the holes in the toe, meaning that is there any way that something could have manilupated the gene pool? or such like.

if we all think alike and never ask those questions thus isnt that a problem.

for example in christendom slavery was ok till someone felt the need to speak up and say this isnt right and changed it.

i dont scientists see above that at all. biologists here are often jobless(no grant, no work).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top