The Genesis Flood Boundary Discussions

By -
When reading creation science publications, you are likely to see the expression "Flood model" in geology. (Regular readers have seen it here.) The way I figure it, this is a sort of general expression because there are actually several models of the Genesis Flood processes, but most are in agreement over the main points.
Genesis Flood geology has models, hypotheses, disagreements and discussion
Credit: RGBstock / Aureliy Movila
Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion agree that the Genesis Flood actually happened, and it happened a few thousand years ago. Their models are far more effective at describing what is observed in geomorphology and other areas than secular uniformitarian dogma. Flood geologists have their hypotheses and models. However, when scientists do science stuff, they disagree on details. Was there a post-Flood boundary? If so, where? How does it compare to other boundaries? Why do secular scientists shy away from the unique continental shelf and slope?

 Models are run up the flag pole to see if anyone salutes them. There is disagreement, and serious dialog is requested from several geological disciplines. Some hope to reach a consensus so they don't have all those models floating around.
An integral part of any comprehensive Flood model is discerning the distinction between Flood processes and post-Flood catastrophism in the rock record. The characteristics of the continental shelf, slope, and rise suggest that the location of the boundary was reasonably synchronous on a global scale. However, there is no consensus among Flood geologists on where the post-Flood boundary should be placed. The geological column concept provides a useful framework of discourse for examining different approaches to the post-Flood boundary among creationists. There are three main schools of thought: (1) the Precambrian/Paleozoic Boundary Model, (2) the K/T Boundary Model, and (3) the Late Cenozoic Boundary Model. Each one makes different assumptions and has specific issues that need addressing. Multiple criteria spanning several fields of study need to be used to examine this issue since just one can be equivocal.
To read the rest of this rather specialized article, click on "The Cenozoic, Flood processes, and post-Flood catastrophism—problems and parameters".

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more