Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by krissmith777.
@Sean Pitman,
Genesis only mentions four great rivers existing before the Flood as well as small “seasâ€. Mrs. White mentions that small shallow seas also existed, but that there were no great oceans at all.
As I’ve said in a former comment, I am skeptical of Ellen White.
Interestingly enough, the four rivers are well accounted in modern geography/geology. In the middle east near the Persian Gulf, two fossil rivers have been found by satalites that match the description of the Gion and Pishon which happen to join the Tigris and the Euphrates where the Pursian Gilf is now. These rivers and fossil rivers match the Biblical description..What’s more, the Bible gives geographic locations for the rivers that were known in post-flood times by the near-easterners themselves…Together that indicates that the flood did not alter the geology/geography, not to mention it still supports a local flood. I know you could argue that it is not the same Tigris, Eupheates, Gihon and Pishon…but there is no reason to believe that, and it hardly accounts for the fact that the Bible itself says that the Gihon flowed in Cush (Persia), that the Tigris flows towards Assyria, etcetera, etcetera (Genesis 2: 10-14) To say othersise, that these rivers didn’t really flow in the areas that the ancient writters knew of in the post-flood world is the same as saying that the Genesis account is wrong…something I am not going to do.
According to mainstream literature these currents are not powerful enough to drive continental drift and no one really knows what caused the currents – i.e., if they are really involved as a driving force in continental drift or are simply a result of continental drift.
You are arguing from ignorance. Besides, nobody has ever said they are the only possible mechanisms for sea floor spreading. We may not fully understand the details, but the hardly represents support for your view.
There is very good evidence to support this hypothesis…
That “hypothesis” makes two notable predictions:
1. What does this predict about volcanic island chains caused by “hot spots”? — Rapid “catastrophic” plate tectonics would move on a massive scale in year, as Noah’s Flood lasted for a year… If this is true, then there would be no underground mounds (which are the remains of former Islands) what have been caused by volcanic activity under the surface.
2. What about the age of the sea beds? — The age of MOST of the ocean floor should be demonstrated to be approxamately the same age, within a year.
The results come in negative:
1. the remains of underwater island chains which were formed by “hot spot” volcanos are inconsistent with “catastrphic” plate tectonics. –The Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain itself indicates long, gradual plate tectonics. — The chain originates a bit south of the Bering Strait, and continues before taking an “L” shape to continue to where the Hawaiian Islands are now. They were all formed by the same “Hot Spot” volcanoe as the plates traveled on over it. — If this had happened within the space of a year, then that means that the plate was moving at a rate of 750 centimeters a minute!!!! That is the same as 25 feet a minute! With that in mind, the hot spot would never have had the time to create the ungerground mounds…even if it could have left a trail, it would not be what we see today. (A while ago, when I was considering and was opened to the idea of “Flood Geology,” I tried to harmonize this particular fact with a year flood…I couldn’t.)
2. The second prediction of the age of the sea floors being almost consistently the same is also a failure. The closer to a mis-ocean ridge we get to, the younger the rocks get. The farther we get, the older the materials get. These ages are separated by long periods of time.
Map of the ocean basins by age: http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~kenhon/GEOL205/Chain/ocean-crust-pacific-age.jpg
Also, the above listed argument has nothing to do with explaining how the continents are maintained. This argument has to do with the rate of sediment accumulation within the oceans. In other words, there isn’t nearly enough sediment in the oceans if the oceans really are hundreds of millions of years old as mainstream scientists believe.
Some parts of the sea basins are younger than others…. But this argument can be accounted for bt the fact that (as given in the map i linked above), A LOT of the ocean floors ARE NOT “hundreds of millions” of years old, as you put it. — A lot of it is between 0 to 40 million years old, some of it is between 70 to 100 million years old, hence MOST of it is relatively younger than what your argument assumes. The oldest parts of the sea floor are dated between 120 to 150 million years, but that is a minority of the sea floor. — Considerng this, and ASSUMING that the “sediment” thinckness is even representative for age, we would only expect the thickest sedements on a minority of the sea floor, not the majority. The sedimentation rate would vary from that.
If tens of millions of years have in fact transpired these islands (with inactive volcanos) should be eroded flat by now. The fact that they aren’t strongly suggests that they aren’t that old.
Sean…the fact that volcanic islands can form new land is enough to prove that the process for recycling and using new materials is greater than the erosion rate. Or else, no new island could form as the erosion would out do the land that DID manage to get formed fight after…It would ofset it before an island could even form.
Where did it all go? – since the current amount of sediment in the ocean basins can be easily explained within 15 million years?
Different Young Earth Creationists (like Kent Hovind) say 30 million years, and you say 15 million years. I don’t know which figure to trust. –Besides, you seem to not understand that Plate Tectonics has been going on since the first continents even formed, and these processes have a hand in dismantling parts of the sea floor and creating new sea floor. The sea floor from, for example, the Cambrian period is NO LONGER on the sea floor, and as a result, we have no sea floor that is 445 million years old because plate tectonics ran it’s course. (continents during the Cambrian: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/540moll.jpg )
krissmith777 Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent,
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that Dr. Pitman chose to ignore this problem. According to Pitman, plate tectonics moved very rapidly during the flood and then slowed down, which creates the dilemma Kris has spoken to. The massive ocean basin and its seamounts could not have existed prior to the flood, but how could they possibly have formed in such little time during the flood itself–or during the following year?
In my judgement, it was the strongest point I made in that comment.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@ Professor Kent
How bizarre that I argue for the superiority of the Bible, and Bob, rather than joining me, says that Richard Dawkins–of all people, being one of the most antagonistic toward the Bible–is on my side! WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO DEFEND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM?
The way some of out fellow christians associate others with positions they just do not like with “hard” atheists like Richard Dawkins is nothing more than an ad hominem. — In a different thread on a different website, one person I was talking to kept bringing up Richard Dawkins. It was “Richard Dawkins says..” “Richard Dawkins claims…” It was all a tactic to simply dismiss what I was saying simply because he thought Dawkins would agree with me…even slightly. But there are major problems with such tactics: 1) Richard Dawkins speaks for Richard Dawkins, not for me. 2) I don’t even care what Richard Dawkins says, and our fellow Christians who worry about what he says should have better things to worry about. There seems to be a mentality here that because Dawkins takes a certain position, that we should take the opposite extreme, but that doesn’t even follow.
Let the hard atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens say what they want…It makes no difference to me.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Sean Pitman,
You said before that overall rate of erosion and and sedimentation world wide along with the replacement of the materials is constant… I know that. But you keep assuming that the rate of today is the same as 200 million years ago, and quite frankly, you have no basis for such an assumption…and really, there is reason to believe otherwise as well.
Geologists point out that the landmasses of today are much more mountainous and more rugged than in the past….and the mountanous topography is a excelerator to the rates of erosion…Now, if this is true, then that would mean that today the overall rate of erosion (and the addition of sediments to the ocean basins) would right now be at an all time high…As such, the current rate of sedimentary deposition cannot be used as a reliable clock to date the ocean floor. (Davis Young, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, pages 128-131)
Reputable Creation Scientists give vastly different estimates of the sea floor accumulation. You give the estimate of 15 million years. — Henry Morris gives the estimate of 75 million years (Scientific Creationism, pages 155, 156) — Stewart E. Nevins gives the estimate of 30 million years (Link: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/ ) — Russel Humphries’ estimate is 12 million years (Link: http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world ) — With all these vastly differing estimates on the parts of creation scientists, it makes me wonder about the basis of their data…especially since it’s the same argument. It’s not as if we have numerous dating methods being used and all disagreeing…Rather, it’s that we seem to have the same method being used and still disagreeing.
–But I think I’ve found the mentality behind your argument. Stewart Nevins, on his page about the sedimentation of the sea floor, says:
In only 30 million years assuming constant rate of erosion all the ocean sediments could have accumulated. This age does not square with the over 1 billion year age assumed by evolutionary uniformitarian geologists. (Bold, his)
So, his argument is that since today’s rate would have deposited more, that therefore the principal of uniformity is wrong.. I dare say anyone who claims that geologists think “rates” have always been the same for EVERYTHING doesn’t understand the principle…At least, not in it’s current form. The principle he is refering to is known as “Substantive Uniformitarianism,” and modern geology rejects that. — Geologists now use a different principle called “Methodological Uniformitarianism”; that is processes around today have happened in the past…whether it be a storm, a mudslide, a volcanic eruption, etcetera..They may happen at different rates, but the same phenomena that happen today leave a finger print, and we can identify a geologic formation from the past with a similar finger print. (For more reading on this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA9-79Young.html )
Recent Comments by krissmith777
Scientists ‘potentially skeptical’ of evolution need not apply
I do not know all the details, but I do think that the University is handling this situation quite badly. In the actual news article itself drom the Hufington post, some scientists are quoted as saying that they may as well have a “Creation Museum” with him around… Logical Fallacy: “Slippery Slope.”
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
@Sean Pitman,
At the very least, global migration under ideal conditions, even of sloths, seems plausible (and I think unavoidable given the doubling time for sloth populations under ideal circumstances) – certainly not “impossible†as you’re trying to suggest.
Well, for the record, I said “it would have been difficult, if not impossible.” Perhaps it was possible.
After all, even sloths can move up to a mile in less than four hours when they want to…
They can move faster under some conditions. But it is my understanding that even though they could, they tend not to. They tend to pick up the pace only when necessary; like when they are fleeing from a predator, they can move up to 15 feet a minute, and even then they burn a lot of energy while doing it. On the grund, their maximum speed, however, is 5 feet a minute. (Link: http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/sloth.html )
— Perhaps a journey of such a route could have been possible under certain conditions. Who knows?
But, what I am more concerned about is not the journey, but rather a trail that they would have left behind from Eastern Turkey to North America. I’m more interested in what they would have left behind on their migration to indicate that they were there. For a while, they should have at least had a population in those regions… Perhaps they still would have decendants in Russian forests, or skeletal remains from those who did not make it.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
@Professor Kent
Thus, we cannot expect each successive generation to continue a straight-line march across the globe for thousands or even hundreds of years. In their normal daily movements, they might move 5 miles in a year…but not in a straight line. We have been reassured that even a “small slow tree sloth†can migrate at a 12-mile-per-year pace across the globe. I don’t think so!
It would require movement in areas of the world that they are not adapted to. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the sloth to move from Eastern Turkey, across the Bering Straight land bridge, then from Alaska and then to South America…But, for a moment, lets suppose for a moment that they succeeded…
The sloths tend to live between 10 and 20 years, and in that time they tend to have a single newborn per year. If we go with the conservative number that would mean that at minimum, they probably reproduce 10 newborns within 10 years, but it is also true that the newborns tend to have a high mortality rate within the very first year of their lives. – There is no statistic at the actual death rate in the first year before they have a chance to reproduce, but since there obviously was a net gain in the population (since the flood), that allows the minimum survival rate to be 40%. This would mean that if they birthed 10 newborn sloths, then a maximum of 6 die. If 2 males and two females survived, and if they in turn also had 2 males and 2 females that survived, there would constantly be a doubled population of sloths: The first generation (from the ark) which would be 2 sloths would therefore lead to 4 which in turn leads to 8, and then to 16, and so on and so forth.
[The mistake I made in a former comment was allowing the survival rate being 20% which, now that I think of it, would have only produced only two surviving sloths constantly. It had to have been more.]
Add into the equation that it is over 3,000 miles from Eastern Turkey to the Bering Strait which leads to North America. – Using Sean’s estimate that they may have traveled 12 miles in a [year], that would indicate that they made it to the outskirts of North America in 250 years. With this in mind, one is left to wonder about a population of sloths in modern Russia which should have been considerable…or at least noticeable, though it is possible there may have been times when their birth rates and survival rates would have dropped a bit, though that doesn’t clear the problem, and there should be evidence of such a migration from Eastern Turkey. – Also, when one factors in the time sloths spend sleeping in a day (15 to 18 hours a day), the idea that they could have traveled 12 miles a year is a stretch. And that goes without mentioning that they almost never get out of the trees. That begs the question of how far they were willing to walk over treeless territory until they would find more trees.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
In my experience, those who hate the Bible hate any kind of Christian, not just people of blind faith.
But I don’t think anyone here is really insisting on blind faith, I think they just don’t want to use a certain sort of “test tube” for God. –There is evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, which is why I hold it in high esteem. Even in the areas that would seem to have some “weakness” of archeological evidence, there is still some real strength that warrents belief. The profecy of the “cutting-off” of the messiah in Daniel 9:24-27 actually gives a time-frame that Jesus really seems to match, and as such I see true divine inspiration in the book of Daniel (which is actually my favorite book of the Bible). Even if Daniel were written in 164 BC, as a lot of skeptics believe, no uninspires writter would ever know such a detail. So, despite my differences of opinion of interpretation, there is no doubt in my mind that God did in fact inspire the Bible. This itself, in my judgement, is good, imperical evidence for not just the Bible, but also God himself.
But, as said before, the problem others here have is reducing God to a “test tube.” As a Christian myself, I am not crazy about that. — You ended your post with a good quote from Galileo Galilei, and so I shall end this comment with another from him:
The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
@krissmith777: Great liberal minds always think the same, they can judge the outcome. Outcome based decisions ignore principled decisions. Christ on the cross could not see through the grave, a great example of a principled decision!Thank you Michigan for standing on principle. (Quote)
I am not a liberal.
