Creationism and the Problem of Biogeography


#21

[quote=adstrinity]I thought you would.

  1. Well, as long as this makes things easier for China when they decide to take over.

  2. I do not believe it has been determined that “the earth is actually billions of years old”.

  3. Probably.

Enlighten me, please.
[/quote]

The magna below the earth’s crust circulates according to currents that are generated by the earth’s magnetism. This motion causes shifts in the cooled crust of the earth. The cooled crust not only includes land, but ocean floors. Thus, even ocean floors are floating upon the magna. Given that water resides above the ocean floor, water is a passenger on the shifting continents. That you would suggest that continents drifted because of the Flood shows a great deal of ignorance about geology.

The movement of tectonic plates may be at odds with one another, causing a great deal of stress. When that stress is released, the earth’s crust gives way suddenly and moves–we call that an earthquake. Most earthquakes occur along the boundaries of the tectonic plates, but some also occur elsewhere, as there is variance of crust movement within a tectonic plate, as well.

To explain what is happening to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, there is a huge fault line running down the middle of the Atlantic ocean. In this particular location, the plates are spreading and magna is continually coming to the surface to cool. Thus the Atlantic ocean is becoming wider. As the American plates are pushed West, they collide with the Pacific and Nazca plates. When plates collide, several things can occur, including mountain formation or sometimes, one plate will submerge under the other. For long periods, the plates are “stuck” against each other, and finally when the pressure to too great to bear any longer, they give way and the earth moves (earthquake).

In spite of the damage that the worst earthquakes can create, the earth moves very little at a time. (Again Thailand only moved 27 centimeters last Dec.) It really takes a very long time for any significant movement to occur.

For more information see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics


#22

Where did the water on our planet come from anyway?
Does the atmosphere retain it?
Did the water come after the atmosphere arrived?
How was an atmosphere created by life in the absence of water or atmosphere?


#23

[quote=I Leatherman]Where did the water on our planet come from anyway?
Does the atmosphere retain it?
Did the water come after the atmosphere arrived?
How was an atmosphere created by life in the absence of water or atmosphere?
[/quote]

Water is formed from 2 basic elements of the universe: oxygen and hydrogen. God organized the elements He created into the macro elements that we recognize, such as water, atmosphere, and rock. His wisdom and intelligence guide every working of the universe. The laws of physics are not secular, impersonal mechanisms. They are the intimate and personal manefestations of God’s hand in creation.

I’m not sure what you mean by your other questions.


#24

"Originally Posted by I Leatherman
Where did the water on our planet come from anyway?

Water is formed from 2 basic elements of the universe: oxygen and hydrogen. God organized the elements He created into the macro elements that we recognize, such as water, atmosphere, and rock. His wisdom and intelligence guide every working of the universe. The laws of physics are not secular, impersonal mechanisms. They are the intimate and personal manefestations of God’s hand in creation." :thumbsup:

"I’m not sure what you mean by your other questions."
Not to worry. Its just that some would say water arrived on earth from comets.
And the atmosphere was gradually built up by organizims respiring.
But without water already on earth there would be no life.
And without an atmosphere water would just boil off the surface or freeze. :ehh: I dunno.


#25

[quote=petra]The magna below the earth’s crust circulates according to currents that are generated by the earth’s magnetism. This motion causes shifts in the cooled crust of the earth. The cooled crust not only includes land, but ocean floors. Thus, even ocean floors are floating upon the magna. Given that water resides above the ocean floor, water is a passenger on the shifting continents. That you would suggest that continents drifted because of the Flood shows a great deal of ignorance about geology.
[/quote]

It may be true that I show a great deal of ignorance about geology, but, me suggesting that the continents drifted because of the flood does not have anything to do with said ignorance. I think you are relying too much on the continents drifted BECAUSE of earthquakes and such, instead of leaving leighway for a torrential downpour that eroded bits of land down to the quick allowing them to move.


#26

[quote=adstrinity]It may be true that I show a great deal of ignorance about geology, but, me suggesting that the continents drifted because of the flood does not have anything to do with said ignorance. I think you are relying too much on the continents drifted BECAUSE of earthquakes and such, instead of leaving leighway for a torrential downpour that eroded bits of land down to the quick allowing them to move.
[/quote]

Well, it just doesn’t work that way.


#27

[quote=adstrinity]It may be true that I show a great deal of ignorance about geology, but, me suggesting that the continents drifted because of the flood does not have anything to do with said ignorance. I think you are relying too much on the continents drifted BECAUSE of earthquakes and such, instead of leaving leighway for a torrential downpour that eroded bits of land down to the quick allowing them to move.
[/quote]

The plates are not moving because of earthquakes. Rather, earthquakes are generally the result of moving plates.

Your hypothesis that the plates are moving as the result of erosion caused by a torrential downpour has no evidence to support it. Therefore, there is no reason to leave any leeway for your idea.

Peace

Tim


#28

I don’t necessarily subscribe to this idea but has anybody thought the water that covered the earth could have been in the form of ice, as in the ice age?


#29

[quote=Orogeny]The plates are not moving because of earthquakes. Rather, earthquakes are generally the result of moving plates.

Your hypothesis that the plates are moving as the result of erosion caused by a torrential downpour has no evidence to support it. Therefore, there is no reason to leave any leeway for your idea.

Peace

Tim
[/quote]

Uh-huh.

Meh. We’ll see.


#30

IA << but has anybody thought the water that covered the earth could have been in the form of ice, as in the ice age? >>

Yes, that is the person’s view below. It may be reading too much into Genesis 6-9 however, what is called “concordism” by Fr. Stanley Jaki. But it at least conforms to what we know from science, there was an Ice Age.


After the record of descendants of Adam there is the story of Noah and the great flood. The waters of the flood came upon the earth for “forty days and forty nights.” Noah, his three sons, and their wives, survived the flood in an ark. “Higher and higher above the earth rose the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged, the crest rising fifteen cubits higher than the submerged mountains.” (Gen 7:19-20). How is it possible that waters were about 7 meters over all mountain crests that are at different heights? It is possible if the water is in the solid phase! As “six days” in Genesis 1 represents about 15 billion years of creation, so “forty days and nights” could represent many thousands of years when water fell in the form of snow, the last glacial “ice age” period when all the first men (neanderthals) disappeared.


Article here: Hominization: On the Origin of Mankind, and a Story of the Fall

Sent to me by a Ph.D. in physics, I think its very interesting.

Phil P


#31

You should be very careful in accepting anything you read on “Answers in Genesis.”

I have found them carefully altering what scientists have said, to make it appear that they believe what they do not.

Don’t believe anything you find there, unless you can verify it from a scientific source.


#32

[quote=atheos_sum]…The problem for creationism is explaining how all these distinct creatures (especially land-dwelling creatures) reached such far-off and isolated places like the Galapagos if in fact they all migrated from Noah’s Ark…
[/quote]

it is only a problem for literalist


#33

How long did the earth exist before the flood, millions of years?
Why couldnt there be sedimentary rock formed before the flood.

Gondwanaland:
"also called GONDWANA, hypothetical former supercontinent in the Southern Hemisphere, which included South America, Africa, peninsular India, Australia, and Antarctica. The name was coined by the Austrian geologist Eduard Suess in reference to the Upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic formations of the Gondwana region of central India, which display typical developments of some of the shared geologic features.

The geologic evidence for a former land connection between the currently separated continents and other areas includes the occurrence of tillites (glacial deposits) of Permo-Carboniferous age (the time boundary between the Carboniferous and Permian periods is 286 million years ago) and similar floras and faunas that are not found in the Northern Hemisphere. The widely distributed seed fern Glossopteris is particularly cited in this regard. The rock strata that contain this evidence are called the Karoo (Karroo) System in South Africa, the Gondwana System in India, and the Santa Catharina System in South America.

The concept that the continents were at one time joined in the geologic past was first set forth in detail by Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, in 1912. He envisioned a single great landmass, Pangaea, which supposedly began to separate late in the Triassic Period (245 to 208 million years ago). Subsequent workers distinguished between a southern landmass, Gondwanaland, and Laurasia to the north. It should be noted that much of Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift was based on the apparent geographic “fit” of the bulge of eastern South America and the western coast of Africa. The geologic evidence cited earlier was provided by subsequent investigators.

The idea of Gondwanaland languished for many years, except among scientists in countries of the Southern Hemisphere, until the 1960s, when evidence of sea-floor spreading from the loci of oceanic ridges proved that the ocean basins are not permanent global features and vindicated Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift. Although the term Gondwanaland does not appear in the modern literature with great frequency, the concept of continental drift and former continental connections is widely accepted."

Also mountain building occured because of and after continental drift. On a single original ‘gondwanaland’ landmass there would be none of these mountain building effects of continental collisions, so ‘mountains’ could be very low and would not be the type of mountains we see today. So floodwaters need not have been so high as we would imagine making the volume of water necessary for a global flood much less.
Um…just a thought.


#34

[quote=I Leatherman]…Also mountain building occured because of and after continental drift. On a single original ‘gondwanaland’ landmass there would be none of these mountain building effects of continental collisions, so ‘mountains’ could be very low and would not be the type of mountains we see today. So floodwaters need not have been so high as we would imagine making the volume of water necessary for a global flood much less.
Um…just a thought.
[/quote]

No,
the various continents over time were combinations of plates just like today’s continents are
as those plates came together and ground past each other to form a land mass they would make mountains a rifts just like today. If fact since mountains take a long time to build and errode some of the older ranges around today were built back then

for example the Appalachian mounts formed 680 milion years ago when the supercontinent of Pangea came together.

consider that today the single continent of Asia has the Himalayas, the Urals, and the Caucasians right in the middle of it. Like Gondwanaland, Asia is comprised of multiple plates.


#35

[quote=I Leatherman]Also mountain building occured because of and after continental drift. On a single original ‘gondwanaland’ landmass there would be none of these mountain building effects of continental collisions, so ‘mountains’ could be very low and would not be the type of mountains we see today. So floodwaters need not have been so high as we would imagine making the volume of water necessary for a global flood much less.
Um…just a thought.
[/quote]

It’s interesting that you are willing to accept the geological evidence for plate tectonics, including the estimated ages for different events, yet you don’t seem to be willing to accept that there is NO geologic evidence of a global flood.

Based on your post, do you feel that Noah lived 250 million years ago?

By the way, “Gondwanaland” would have had mountains. Crustal plate movement didn’t suddenly start during the late Paleozoic.

Peace

Tim


#36

"It’s interesting that you are willing to accept the geological evidence for plate tectonics, including the estimated ages for different events, yet you don’t seem to be willing to accept that there is NO geologic evidence of a global flood.

Based on your post, do you feel that Noah lived 250 million years ago?

By the way, “Gondwanaland” would have had mountains. Crustal plate movement didn’t suddenly start during the late Paleozoic.

Peace

Tim"

I’ll accept anything, but dont tell me exactly what happened 650 million yrs ago without evidence.
There is evidence of plate tectonics, yet no definite knowledge of why and how plates move, so no way to tell exactly how they may have behaved in the past.
Is there really no geologic evidence that puzzles you?


#37

[quote=I Leatherman]…
There is evidence of plate tectonics, yet no definite knowledge of why and how plates move, so no way to tell exactly how they may have behaved in the past.
[/quote]

tidal forces, convection currents etc
there are a host of mechanisms for plate tectonics

as well as a host of evidence to tell pretty closely what happened in the past

[quote=I Leatherman]Is there really no geologic evidence that puzzles you?
[/quote]

no, not particularly :wink:


#38

[quote=I Leatherman]I’ll accept anything, but dont tell me exactly what happened 650 million yrs ago without evidence.
[/quote]

First off, I haven’t mentioned what happened 650 million years ago, so I don’t know what you meant in your post. However, if you are interested in geology, I would suggest you take physical and historical geology classes. Geology is an incredibly interesting subject.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence for what was going on in the past. That’s what geologists do - we gather evidence and come up with a hypothesis that explains that evidence. When the evidence is strong enough, the hypothesis becomes a theory. Plate tectonics is a good example.

There is evidence of plate tectonics, yet no definite knowledge of why and how plates move, so no way to tell exactly how they may have behaved in the past.

There are some pretty strong ideas about how and why, but for the purposes of this discussion, those are irrelevant. We know what has happened in the past based on the evidence we have.

Is there really no geologic evidence that puzzles you?

Not really.

Peace

Tim


#39

Thank you my geologic friends,

"Quote:
Is there really no geologic evidence that puzzles you? "

‘Not really’ and ‘not particularly’, in the words of another friend:
‘I concluded from the very beginning that this would be the end of the matter and I see now that I was right, for it is not half over yet.’


#40

[quote=I Leatherman]Quote:
“Did a geologist also tell you how life possibly survived the massive catastophe that would have occurred when the plates broke up and moved?”

Well, I find myself here, the plates broken, and moved, according to everyone and everythings hunky-dory.
[/quote]

Proof positive, no doubt.

“(2) How did the Green River Formation in Wyoming form with its 20,000,000 (million) Varve layers in one year of a global flood? (each layer requires at least a month to settle)”

Each layer requires a month to settle today in our present conditions. "

“Do you have any evidence that the rate of settling of fine-grained particles in water is slower now than in the past?”

It is easy to flocculate fine-grained particles. Do you have concrete evidence of a uniform global past.

Ok, say we go with your scenario. 20,000,000 varves in 5,000 years comes out to 4,000 varves a year (assuming that the deposition is still occurring, which, of course, it is not) or roughly 11 varves per day. I have a hard time accepting those numbers. Do you have any evidence what so ever that these numbers are realistic?

"All Noah needed to save, it could be argued, was the 38 phyla of animals which later evolved into their different species. "

“It’s good to see that you believe in macroevolution.”

(deliberate intelligent design).
Keeping in mind that these phyla always had to have the potential for perfect variety inbuilt into them. A simple or primitive plant or insect having 2 - 2.5 times the number of chromosomes as a person allows for much variety from a basic body plan.
Its hard to see a plant evolving many times more chromosomes than it needs, assuming a plant can design its-self.

Evolution would have you move a creature from extremely basic to more complex. But the reality is of complex creatures suddenly appearing in a complete state in the fossil record. And these creatures would have the capacity to produce many perfect variants.

What is your criteria for “perfect”?

Where did you cut and paste that from?

“(5) the “evolutionary” ordering of the fossils found throughout the geological strata (fish before amphibians before reptiles before mammals, etc), a global flood would mix up the order considerably, or sort by “weight” which we definitely do not see”

"Sort by body density surely, which some say they have demonstrated experimentally in the order you give. "

“How come there are no flowering plants found in carboniferous coal deposits? Hmmm? Were they sorted out from the other plant mass that make up coal deposits?”

Perhaps, perhaps it was winter.

So, when did they grow in order to die and be sorted by the flood that covered the entire earth?

"The chalk deposits and limestone deposits are primarily mineral in origin with surprisingly [to geologists] little fossil evidence present. "

“Oh, really? Here’s one geologist that is stunned to learn that fossils are rare in chalks (almost completely composed of fossils) and limestones.”

I work with quarried limestones of all common types. This year I saw two small fossils. Away from bedding planes fossils are scarce.
I watched an English geologist poke his pen-knife into the cliffs of Dover and listened to the words ‘but fossils are surprisingly rare’.

Perhaps that is because limestones used for sculpture don’t contain many macrofossils.

As far as your english geologist friend is concerned, with all due respect, he is an idiot. The Dover chalks are made up entirely of fossils.

“(8) where did all the water come from, and where did it go?”

"Fountains of the deep? Possibly the water didnt go anywhere, land separated, collided, raised up. Maybe a fractured land was more boyant on the mantel than a single landmass. "

“So your position is that the crustal plates are floating on water?”

No.

So, where did the water go?

Peace

Tim


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.