Fountains of the Great Deep
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Oh. Okay. The Mammoths are not in water-laid sediment, they are in wind blown sediment.
The number of mammoth bones in particular at the layer we find mammoth carcasses is out of proportion to other animal's bones when compared to their relative obscurity in other fossil layers.
If a carcass got froze it stayed that way.
These point to a post-flood extinction.
The fact that we can count many tons of mammoth ivory suggests that it was even 100-400 years post flood. Looooong after Dr. Walt Brown's supersonic outer-atmosphere freezing water episode.
It's not a big slight on Dr. Brown since this is a minor point. He should stick wth his major point and promote the "waters of the deep" theory, which I believe is correct.
The number of mammoth bones in particular at the layer we find mammoth carcasses is out of proportion to other animal's bones when compared to their relative obscurity in other fossil layers.
If a carcass got froze it stayed that way.
These point to a post-flood extinction.
The fact that we can count many tons of mammoth ivory suggests that it was even 100-400 years post flood. Looooong after Dr. Walt Brown's supersonic outer-atmosphere freezing water episode.
It's not a big slight on Dr. Brown since this is a minor point. He should stick wth his major point and promote the "waters of the deep" theory, which I believe is correct.
Walt Velikovsky
Walt Velikovsky
I find Mr. Enyart’s relatively recent adoption of Walt’s ideas interesting. It is a tacit admission that some of Enyart’s previous defenses of a young earth were based on bad science. How many more of Enyart’s creationist scientific beliefs are going to give way to new versions as he adopts new ideas that contradict his previous claims?
Walt Brown appears to be a variant of Velikovsky – able to patch together enough superficial scientific ideas to support his pet interpretation. In those aspects where Walt’s scenario should leave clear scientific evidence, he should be able to point to that evidence. Mainstream geologists should either concur with this evidence, or point out that there are significant weaknesses in Walt’s postulated scenario. I am not aware of any appreciable recognition of Walt’s ideas outside of religious groups that have a need to defend their theology.
Walt Velikovsky
I find Mr. Enyart’s relatively recent adoption of Walt’s ideas interesting. It is a tacit admission that some of Enyart’s previous defenses of a young earth were based on bad science. How many more of Enyart’s creationist scientific beliefs are going to give way to new versions as he adopts new ideas that contradict his previous claims?
Walt Brown appears to be a variant of Velikovsky – able to patch together enough superficial scientific ideas to support his pet interpretation. In those aspects where Walt’s scenario should leave clear scientific evidence, he should be able to point to that evidence. Mainstream geologists should either concur with this evidence, or point out that there are significant weaknesses in Walt’s postulated scenario. I am not aware of any appreciable recognition of Walt’s ideas outside of religious groups that have a need to defend their theology.
Re: Walt Velikovsky
Re: Walt Velikovsky
Like evolutionists have never been gungho about an artifact or postulate only to later find out that they were clearly wrong! Of course, this is after persuasively making the case to his audience that the evidence fits. Hey even though they were wrong, being wrong at times shouldn't necessarily destroy one's credibility. Face it, trying to explain phenomena often involves a lot of guesswork. I think it's safe to say that when it comes to hypotheses, scientists get it wrong most of the time along the path to the truth. It seems that Enyart gives great thought to his theories. At least give him the same grace that you undoubtly give to your evolutionist buddies.
Re: Walt Velikovsky
You mean you find no similarities with the way Enyart revises his creation theories and the way evolutionists revise theirs? Give me a break and open your eyes. I can make the same claim about the way evolutionists scramble willling to stack theory on top of theory on top of theory just to get their evolutionary model to work. I'm not even going to waste my energies listing them. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you have the blinders on and are such a hypocrite.
Like evolutionists have never been gungho about an artifact or postulate only to later find out that they were clearly wrong! Of course, this is after persuasively making the case to his audience that the evidence fits. Hey even though they were wrong, being wrong at times shouldn't necessarily destroy one's credibility. Face it, trying to explain phenomena often involves a lot of guesswork. I think it's safe to say that when it comes to hypotheses, scientists get it wrong most of the time along the path to the truth. It seems that Enyart gives great thought to his theories. At least give him the same grace that you undoubtly give to your evolutionist buddies.
Walt's debate challenge limited to purely scientific facts and reasoning is out there. Perhaps you should put your actions where your mouth is and start prodding some of these "mainstream geologists" to accept his challenge.
Very interesting Phy. Because you're not aware of "any appreciabe recognition of Walt's ideas" you want to subtly put his theories and postulates down as merely religious? If you're so interested in the truth, it would be best first to scientifically consider his theories. Where are the flaws? Why doesn't it fit the evidence? Trying doing this before your obsessive rambling.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Yorzhik - You said
(1) Brown said that they were frozen by a massive ice dump from the sky downward, not water laid sediment. Remember, he said that many of the mammoths were frozen standing up, like an instant freeze took them over, and that the hail that compacted around them was unlike any seen before, they called it a brick hail (or rock hail), if I recall correctly.
(2) That is what Brown said, and His theory demonstrates a reasonable method of such a large animal being instantly subjected to freezing conditions such that preserved them until they were discovered thousands of years later!
(3) I am no expert about the tonnage of mammoth ivory, but how does their tonnage suggest anything about it being 100-400 years post flood? Suggestion, if they were all froze over early on with a heavy, probably the heaviest ice dump in history i.e. never before seen brick hail, then after being completely covered with this ice dump and before the deluge covered the entire earth, they were all sealed tight just like we find them today. So the flood need not melt away and rip away everything and all ice dumps. Just look at the north and south poles, they probably have more ice below the waters than above them even today.
So are you suggesting that the frozen ice dump could not have survived the flood? Or, why assume that finding many mammoths means that happened after the flood?
I hear you, but I don’t see any reasoning against what Brown is saying happened.
(1) Brown said that they were frozen by a massive ice dump from the sky downward, not water laid sediment. Remember, he said that many of the mammoths were frozen standing up, like an instant freeze took them over, and that the hail that compacted around them was unlike any seen before, they called it a brick hail (or rock hail), if I recall correctly.
(2) That is what Brown said, and His theory demonstrates a reasonable method of such a large animal being instantly subjected to freezing conditions such that preserved them until they were discovered thousands of years later!
(3) I am no expert about the tonnage of mammoth ivory, but how does their tonnage suggest anything about it being 100-400 years post flood? Suggestion, if they were all froze over early on with a heavy, probably the heaviest ice dump in history i.e. never before seen brick hail, then after being completely covered with this ice dump and before the deluge covered the entire earth, they were all sealed tight just like we find them today. So the flood need not melt away and rip away everything and all ice dumps. Just look at the north and south poles, they probably have more ice below the waters than above them even today.
So are you suggesting that the frozen ice dump could not have survived the flood? Or, why assume that finding many mammoths means that happened after the flood?
Truth in science and religion
Truth in science and religion
From jhodgeiii:
I have no problem giving Enyart “the same grace that undoubtedly give to [my] evolutionist buddies”, if he is willing to reject religious “truths” with the same willingness that science employs when found to be wrong in its ideas.
Truth in science and religion
From jhodgeiii:
You are assuming something that I neither said nor implied. Science itself is a process, not a set of ultimate truths. It is the nature of this process that errors may be recognized and need to be corrected. In contrast, do or do not Christians believe that they are in possession of many absolute inviolate truths?
I will readily admit that evolutionists have made statements that they have had to retract. So have people in most fields of science. But in some branches of science the confidence in the conclusions is now strong enough that it seems a bit silly to preface every statement with “we think…”. For many scientists, the fundamental concepts of evolution are in that category. It has gone through a period of refinement, but the overarching concept of common descent is now felt to be no longer an issue. That does not mean there is not still much to learn about the details of evolution.
I have no problem giving Enyart “the same grace that undoubtedly give to [my] evolutionist buddies”, if he is willing to reject religious “truths” with the same willingness that science employs when found to be wrong in its ideas.
I was not referring to his debate challenge. As I have stated before in this forum, debate is a poor way to determine scientific truth. Science is much better established by clearly submitting ideas to be subjected to intense scrutiny by people qualified to recognize their strengths and weaknesses. The primary step in this process is the submission of new ideas for peer review and publication. How many of Walt’s ideas relative to the Genesis story are you aware of that have undergone that process?
I should have specified his “religious” ideas. I am sure he has respectable credentials in his engineering field.
I am not a geologist (nor is Walt). I am sure he has spent enough time refining his ideas that he knows many things about geology that I do not. But how many professional geologists concur with the ideas that he proposes? Have the professionals in the field of geology been so incompetent that a non-geologist has picked up on a number of significant clues they missed?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
ThePhy – You said
As to Bob’s humble ability and ready willingness to stand corrected by his errant biblical/religious views, I have had the personal pleasure of helping him in one specific regard where he went to far with God and Him changing as recorded in one of his radio shows, I think it was just last year sometime. There is a thread on this topic in the BEL forum that I started, but it was resolved with a 5-10 minuet talk with him over the phone while he was processing one of my orders of his products. We went back and forth a few times to make sure we each understood each other, the point of contention was then easily brought to focus, I nailed the problem and exposed a solution, and he graciously accepted right on the spot. And ,,, he said that he will have to look over some of his writing in his new book which he had already written to make sure he did not go too far in the way I mentioned he was already venturing, and he thanked me for helping him see that particular perspective. It made no significant change to his core understandings, it just prevented him from overstating the position and incurring unnecessary problems. I have not followed up with it, but I feel quite certain that he will reflect this change in his oncoming book. Bob is an extremely objective and humble person given the truth of his error is well exposed. He constantly asked people to submit their input to him if anything he says is inaccurate. :thumb:
I feel certain also that concerning especially Bob’s core views on creationism is not so much altered as it is bolstered. It was a bit convenient for him to admit that he had some doubts about the water canopy theory for many years, namely that so much water could not be up there, but only now that he has found a brilliant alternative, does he publicly admit such doubts. But then again, I don’t remember him claiming very adamantly that the water canopy theory was not to be doubted either. And a theory is a theory, it is not stated as fact.
I suppose that it is still possible that the preflood earth had a far better atmosphere and perhaps far better ozone protection from harmful UV rays. If what Walt Brown says is true, then loosing so much of the earth’s mass, even at 1/100th of one percent, all the meteors, and comets, and asteroids, came from Earth is a tremendous statement, the flood must have been just unimaginably violent, sending parts of the earth into outer space! Surely such a thing could have put a real “dent” in our atmosphere and ozone protection.
That was a pretty cool observation about the space trash orbiting the shuttle, and how the moon may have been pulverized by earth jettisoned missiles. If this idea is true and the near side of the moon which is somewhat smoother because of the greater mass of compound melting projectiles, then it seems obvious that the event of the flood was far more than a heavy rainfall which flooded the whole earth.
Significant to the water canopy idea was the widespread (however interrupted or substantiated?) lush wildlife and agriculture. Also the idea of a massive water canopy served to suggest a higher barometric pressure which has been suggested to promote a longer life span prior to the flood. So the water canopy theory held some pretty interesting or provocative ideas for the Christian, but if they are not needed, nor as accurate as others, then, ,,, so be it.
You are referring to objectivity in the face of not have all the data on a subject. Creationism verses evolution has a great deal of facts and data to consider, but it is nothing like the empirical science of studying marine biology or agriculture today. Because we do not have the immediacy, the vary nature of the studies of the cause of the universe is prone to speculation.
As to Bob’s humble ability and ready willingness to stand corrected by his errant biblical/religious views, I have had the personal pleasure of helping him in one specific regard where he went to far with God and Him changing as recorded in one of his radio shows, I think it was just last year sometime. There is a thread on this topic in the BEL forum that I started, but it was resolved with a 5-10 minuet talk with him over the phone while he was processing one of my orders of his products. We went back and forth a few times to make sure we each understood each other, the point of contention was then easily brought to focus, I nailed the problem and exposed a solution, and he graciously accepted right on the spot. And ,,, he said that he will have to look over some of his writing in his new book which he had already written to make sure he did not go too far in the way I mentioned he was already venturing, and he thanked me for helping him see that particular perspective. It made no significant change to his core understandings, it just prevented him from overstating the position and incurring unnecessary problems. I have not followed up with it, but I feel quite certain that he will reflect this change in his oncoming book. Bob is an extremely objective and humble person given the truth of his error is well exposed. He constantly asked people to submit their input to him if anything he says is inaccurate. :thumb:
I feel certain also that concerning especially Bob’s core views on creationism is not so much altered as it is bolstered. It was a bit convenient for him to admit that he had some doubts about the water canopy theory for many years, namely that so much water could not be up there, but only now that he has found a brilliant alternative, does he publicly admit such doubts. But then again, I don’t remember him claiming very adamantly that the water canopy theory was not to be doubted either. And a theory is a theory, it is not stated as fact.
I suppose that it is still possible that the preflood earth had a far better atmosphere and perhaps far better ozone protection from harmful UV rays. If what Walt Brown says is true, then loosing so much of the earth’s mass, even at 1/100th of one percent, all the meteors, and comets, and asteroids, came from Earth is a tremendous statement, the flood must have been just unimaginably violent, sending parts of the earth into outer space! Surely such a thing could have put a real “dent” in our atmosphere and ozone protection.
That was a pretty cool observation about the space trash orbiting the shuttle, and how the moon may have been pulverized by earth jettisoned missiles. If this idea is true and the near side of the moon which is somewhat smoother because of the greater mass of compound melting projectiles, then it seems obvious that the event of the flood was far more than a heavy rainfall which flooded the whole earth.
Significant to the water canopy idea was the widespread (however interrupted or substantiated?) lush wildlife and agriculture. Also the idea of a massive water canopy served to suggest a higher barometric pressure which has been suggested to promote a longer life span prior to the flood. So the water canopy theory held some pretty interesting or provocative ideas for the Christian, but if they are not needed, nor as accurate as others, then, ,,, so be it.
Last edited:
elected4ever
New member
I was intrigued by the idea that firmament meant land and not atmosphere. I never heard that before. I had always though that water covered the earth like a giant umbrella. Before I accept the view of the firmament as land i need to hear some other creditable witnesses on the subject.
Me too because this raises another problem which is what caused the average lifespan of predeluvian man to be hundreds of years. I've always heard the theory of the water over the earth creating a kind of high pressure hyperbaric oxygen chamber for the entire earth. Plus the water canopy would theoretically block out harmful ultraviolet rays. Those 2 things combined were supposed to be able to produce long lifespans.
But if there was no water canopy, what now is the explanation for those long lifespans?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jefferson - I suppose you did not read my post, not that you needed to. But I made the same sorts of remarks, with a few exceptions. Consider
As to your question, perhaps it was just yet another natural aspect of God's good design, similarly with the flood having a tremendously natural trigger, the same sort of thing could hold true for the lifespan changes with man. The fact may simply be that the genetic mutations necessary to sufficiently erode the genetic code wasn't cumulative enough until after that many years. Secondly, like I said, it seems likely to me that our atmosphere and ozone protection may have been drastically altered after the flood explosion, thus speeding up the genetic mutation rate. Maybe the air had just as much oxygen as it does today, or nearly so, but man had a superior oxygen absorption/utilization system. Perhaps the same with nutrients as well. When you consider that you and I are built from one extremely tiny instruction set, exposing mutations therein is certainly not a life giving thing to do.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jefferson – LOL I suppose that one thing was that the mutations that mattered the most concerning longevity of life, were not so much the 99% of our cells where the code was kept, but in the reproductive system. Before we die I imagine that our genetic code in various cells have undergone numerous changes, they say that every 7 years, except for I think certain skeleton bones and teeth, we have a completely new body full of cells. So we are a work in progress. But the code that really needs to be altered would likely be ether of the cells prior to procreation, the sperm and the egg, or, after conception and while very young, the new born is at a more foundational part of their lifespan. After you’ve lived into old age, so what if some of our dna get’s mutated, such a change would have much less effect on longevity. So, that, combined with the idea that dna mutations probably require a certain level of deformation until they start producing a negative effect. For example, it may well be that given no change in the atmosphere, men would have started having a shorter life span naturally because of the steady but slow rate of DNA mutation. In fact, the way God designs things so well, it is quite possible that our ozone is to some extent self correcting, but that is simple, albeit reasonable conjecture on my part. Point is, It makes good sense for God to design man at the first to last longer, to help fulfill His concern of being fruitful and multiplying on the Earth. If the reverse was true, that man lived much longer life spans after the flood explosion, then over population would probably become a more realistic problem. So I think it is quite reasonable to assume that God built man with a deterioration set into our genetic code such that after just so much exposure to that which mutates, UV and correct me if I am wrong, but I think I heard from an infomercial that calorie intake causes or contributes to ageing and or mutations. So it sounds to me, like God built us in such a way that as long as we eat and are exposed to the sun’s rays, we would eventually, and somewhat predictably end up with a shorter life span.
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Well, Bob did bring up a good point about the water being up there... Could it stay with gravity alone?
This will be a belief that dies hard for me, too.
While I agree there couldn't have been enough water up there for a flood like the one in Noah's day, most of the water came from under the crust anyway. I have noticed in the summer, the water in a pool only gets warm to about 3" down. So the water around the earth wouldn't have to be all that thick to absorb the rays.
... or perhaps the genetics + food + environment would account for longevity. Maybe this question could be brought up to Mr. Enyart the next time Dr. Brown is on.
Stratnerd
New member
> can you prove the converse?
I always thought that is was up to the person making the extraordinary claim to come up with the evidence. I see no reason to think that people lived any longer than they do today... do we have specimens?
I think the proper way to approach something like aging is to address why it is why people age then see if those things had any reason to change in the past.
I had always thought that aging was due to the shortening of telomeres and cells are no longer able to divide. This has nothing to due with mutation so even if there was some barrier in space it wouldn't affect aging rates.
I always thought that is was up to the person making the extraordinary claim to come up with the evidence. I see no reason to think that people lived any longer than they do today... do we have specimens?
I think the proper way to approach something like aging is to address why it is why people age then see if those things had any reason to change in the past.
I had always thought that aging was due to the shortening of telomeres and cells are no longer able to divide. This has nothing to due with mutation so even if there was some barrier in space it wouldn't affect aging rates.
)Is evidence or blind hope the best way to guide science?
Is evidence or blind hope the best way to guide science?
From Ninevah (relative to providing scientific evidence for exceptional longevity in Old Testament times):
Scientifically, to attempt to prove an idea for which there is no scientific evidence means that every flight of the imagination now becomes fair game for research. As an extreme example, if someone has a religion that claims that giant flying elephants used to live on the backside of mars, perhaps we should engage in a serious discussion of how the climate and UV radiation and diet resulted in these exceptional abilities.
I know of few scientists who do not have clear previous scientific indications to guide their research.
Is evidence or blind hope the best way to guide science?
From Ninevah (relative to providing scientific evidence for exceptional longevity in Old Testament times):
No. Nor can I disprove hundreds of other exceptional claims arising from not only Christianity, but numerous other religions. I do wonder if the eras in which these long-lived Old Testament peoples lived is concurrent with historical records from other parts of the world – records giving no hint of the exceptional life spans in those areas of the world. Was longevity granted only to Biblical peoples, or simply not worth mentioning in cultures such as the Far East?
Scientifically, to attempt to prove an idea for which there is no scientific evidence means that every flight of the imagination now becomes fair game for research. As an extreme example, if someone has a religion that claims that giant flying elephants used to live on the backside of mars, perhaps we should engage in a serious discussion of how the climate and UV radiation and diet resulted in these exceptional abilities.
I know of few scientists who do not have clear previous scientific indications to guide their research.
- Status