When I first discovered the podcast Let's Talk Creation, some months ago now at least, it was very exciting because they covered so amany topics I'd spent a fair amount of time thinking about on my own over the last twenty years. I binged on their shows and wrote them a couple of emails they never answered. It finally dawned on me that they were not at all welcoming toward my own thoughts on these subjects, and that was very disappointing to me beause for all those years I had no one to talk to about any of it and I tought they might at least have an opinion they'd write me about. But they didn't. After hearing more of their podcasts I get the impression they really don't like my ideas. It's of course tnot clear that they are responding to me but some of the topics are what I'd written about and they clearly had no interest in responding to my version of them. Maybe my disagreeing with them about some of it wa off putting. I guess that's possible. Or j they just think my opinions are stupid or something.
At the end of their latest pocdcast they coplain about people who don't accept their view of the Flood boundary, that is, of the point at which the Flood ends in the geologic record. Some thjnk that although there are more strata of the same kind as found in the Geologic Column that they aren't nedcessarily Flood deposits but laid down after the Flood. I guess there'a quie a bit of controversy about which blong to the Flood and which come afterward. I have troubele with this whole line of controversity since I just can't accept that a layer of rock formed just as all those layers in rthe accepted Flood layers were formed, had some completely different kind of source. It's got the same kind of sedimentary composition and the same collection of fossils and I can't see how it could have had any other origin than the Flood for that reason if nothing else. What else could form such a layer but the Flood? Anyway I guess there are scientiests who think it happened so I'm the odd man out as it were. And I'm not persuaded by anything they said about it. If it's go t the same basic propoerties as the Flood layers then it's a Flood layer and that's that to my mind.
So I guess I'll remain at odds with them and they'll just try to ignore me if they even know my opinion, bwhich I'm pretty sure they do. I probably take myself way too seriously for them, since I'm not a scientist, just a do it yourselver cretionist. I've read a fair amount about geology and biology to come to my opinions, and spent twenty years off and on at debating evolutionists along these lines, so I probably do take myself a lot more seriously than tey hink warranted. So I'm without anyone to talk to as usual aboiut these things. Not that I'd want to talk to someone who thinks my opinoins are just dismissible of course.
Besides telling anyone who has doubts about the Flood boundary controversy, they also clamped dsown on the idea that the Flood was a tectonic event, that during the Flood continents moved around banging and crashing into each other and so on. That is to explain why we couldn't expect to see intact human settlements from before the Flood anywhere in the Flood frecord. Well, I don't think we could either, but to my mind you don't need violen t tectonic crashings and bashing s to explain that, all you need is the Flood itrself, forty nights and days of rain all over the earth and the rising tides that washed up over the land and so on. All you need to do is think about the recnet heavy rain in Washington and California which brought on floods which brlught on mudslides and washing washed away cars and so on. The water alone in the worldwide Flood would have been violent enough to to erase anything constructed by human beings on the land.
However, I do think of the Flood as a tectonic event anyway, just not with all that movement and bashingds and crashings and mountbuilding and so on. I don't know what brought on the Flood and nothing anywonwe has suggested makes that part of it clear to me, but something to do with the sea flloor which could be classed as a taectonic event would make sense as at least part of the explanation. The Bible refers to "foundatains of th edeep" and I have no idea what that measn but that's the sea floor reerence we have to work with from scripture. dHow much water was stored in the atmosphere for it to rain forty days and nights continouously all over the earth, is another unknown but it must have been proigious. None of this is easy to explain or understand. But the sea floor no doubt had to change somehow as part of it and tha makes it a tectonic event in itself.
I can't go with the idea that there was much if any tectonic activigty going on during the Flood just because of the cross sections I've seen that show that the strata are completely intact in manyplaces before any kind of disturbance occurs to them. Ewven where the strata are broken up in a particular area you can still easily enough infer that they were all in place before the disruption ofccurred, whever it was that broken them up in a particular place. In England and Tennessee we see all the time periods as it were, broken up and scattered across the land from one end to the other. They're aLL THERE SO THEY ALL UNDERWENT WHATEVER disruption hit them all at the tssame time. All the strata were in place before anything happened to any of the stack anywerhe. I think that can be well enough acrugued although it's onlyh obvious in a few placews such as the Grand Canyon area where the whole stack can be identified in one place. So I've been working for yhears on the observation that the strata were all laid odwn horizontally during the Flood, all of them from bottom to top, beforte the kind of tectonic action occurres that pushed up the land here and there, formed mountains, broke up areas so that formations such as the Grand tarircaste in Utah were the result, formed canyons and so on. That to my mind suggests that the tectonic jolts that caused and still cause earthwuakes and volcanoes began at the end of the Flood, perhaps after the water was drained or at any time during its draining or maybe just before it started to drain, in which case it was probably gthe trihgger for its draining. This I can argue at great tlentgth. And of course I've written about it either on this blog or the Fantasy of Evolution blog somewhere but it's hard to find anything any more because my eyes are so bad and I haven't been able to leave the usual markers to help out with it either.
That's all the geological stuff I've thought about over the years, but I've also done a log ot thinking about the biologicl and genetic side of the questions. jdd I suppose I dshould go on to those here but as often happens I'm getting worn out already and have to stop. Maybe I'll come back to this post later.
faithswindow@mail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment