Author Topic: TB/DRIFT + OROGENY  (Read 6 times)


  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 174
    • View Profile
« on: January 29, 2017, 08:56:00 pm »
Age of the Earth:
Young Earth Evidence
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10)
Young Earth Evidence from Human History and from BIology
Young Earth Evidence from Geology
Young Earth Evidence from Radiometric Dating
Young Solar System Evidence from Astronomy
Additional Sources
Rapid reversals in paleomagnetism undermine use of paleomagnetism in long ages dating of rocks and speak of rapid processes, compressing the long-age time scale enormously.
- The pattern of magnetization in the magnetic stripes where magma is welling up at the mid-ocean trenches argues against the belief that reversals take many thousands of years and rather indicates rapid sea-floor spreading as well as rapid magnetic reversals, consistent with a young earth (Humphreys, D.R., Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped? Creation Research Quarterly 25(3):130–137, 1988).
- Magnetic reversal pattern mid-ocean ridges
Along the mid-ocean ridges, the detailed pattern of magnetic polarisation, with islands of differing polarity, speaks of rapid changes in direction of Earth's magnetic field because of the rate of cooling of the lava. This is consistent with a young Earth.


4. Continental Drift & Orogenesis
=========================Postby Lloyd » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:47 pm
- High Speed Continents. Gordon said: I have difficulty accepting the friction-free mechanism of the SD. Gordon, have you read up on long runout underwater landslides that Mike referenced? Why would that not apply to sliding continents? Mike said a similar long runout landslide was seen on Mars. And why could not the continents have slid on the Moho layer? Charles says that layer is plasma about one meter thick. Wouldn't plasma be nearly frictionless? Charles says racetrack playa rocks also slide due to electrical levitation of the rocks during windy episodes. Those are very low friction events. In my last reply to Mike I asked what it is, if anything, that might make it impossible that the continents could have moved apart in more than 26 hours. So I hope to find out if he has a strong argument for that or not.

[the drift episode], which I take to be 5 months based on the record. It is funny to hear you describe the 5 months as too slow!! And besides, the biblical record directly states that the period of the "matar" ended at the 150 day mark. I don't think you can be so confident about the lack of friction in the Moho, and sheer inertia considerations stretch the imagination to accept your speeds. The slowing of the drift toward the end, due to the friction that also produced the Andes and Rockies, etc. is consistent with the formation of the volcanic chains after the uplift. The hot spot under the Hawaiian chain is also consistent with the Pacific being squeezed from both sides during the drift event.

LK: Do you agree with Walter Brown's Hydroplate theory as the explanation for rapid continental drift?
I don't see much plausibility for the underground chambers of water. Do you?
GW: I taught from a standard text written back in the late 70s that made the claim that enough water is outgassed in volcanic eruptions to account for all of the world's oceans. I've been influenced by that statement, and can go with chambers or levels or layers or fissures/vents from the mantle or any other means by which water may have erupted out. But in my flood view, the water that already existed in the early seas is practically sufficient to have done the flood work via tsunami-type action.
LK: I don't think it would be possible for underground chambers of water to exist 10 miles down, because the rock is plastic, according to the Kola borehole findings. It became too plastic to drill through at 7 miles. I guess things could've been different before the flood.
Brown's Hydroplate theory explains continental drift as underground water chambers ten miles deep caving in and the pressure blowing out at the ocean ridges, which were previously part of the supercontinent.
CC: I don't see the evidence of large amounts of water coming out of the mid-ocean ridges.
LK: Gordon, have you done or seen calculations that support the Hydroplate theory?
- Do you agree with Brown's idea about underground chambers filled with water that caved in and sprayed water and rock through the spreading centers?
- What's wrong with Fisher's theory that continental drift occurred within a 26 hour period?
- If continental drift took 5 months, the continents would have moved at only 1 mph or less. Where would the force be applied to the continents for that lengh of time?
GW: I'm intrigued by it [Hydroplate theory?]. It would fit my model well if further confirmed. I'm not requiring the cave-ins but it's a good idea. I go with inertia after the initial drift-ignition event, Friction and inertia in some mix after that.
CC: I go with Fischer's theory of an impact that generated the momentum. I also favor rapid mountain building, instead of gradualism, just because one cannot say that the crust is oh so plastic, and then say that mountains could have been gradually built up -- if the crust was that plastic, the leveling process would have kept up with the mountain building, so clearly, the moutain building was on a faster pace.
GW: Good point, it is also for this reason I don't believe subduction is required to explain boundary mountains and trenches.
CC: I have a totally different idea of subduction. I don't think (like the mainstream) that the oceanic crust is falling because it is cooler -- it's actually warmer than the mid-ocean ridges. But I don't go with the "all over in an instant" model of Fischer's. Rather, I think that the impact event got things moving, but then I think that each earthquake in the subduction zone causes the next one. The energy sources that heat up the crust result in expansion. When traction is re-established after the rupture, the cooling then exerts a tensile force on the crust, pulling it toward the fault. This is why the rifts form in the back arcs.
LK: CC, have you written anything yet about earthquakes during the continental drift event?
CC: Do you mean in the initial event (i.e., Fischer's "bad day in Madagascar" event)?
LK: I mean during the entire episode of continental drift, mostly the Americas moving from Africa and Europe to about 3,000 miles west.
CC: No, I haven't treated that at all -- I think that Fischer has the right bacic idea, and until/if/when I've done a great deal more studying, I couldn't expect to improve on his work. I just don't think that it was all over in 26 hours -- I think that the initial impact got things going, but then the heating/cooling process at the faults helped keep things going.
LK: So the earthquakes you were talking about above are the current ones that do very minor continental drifting.
CC: Yes -- it's just a couple of centimeters at a time for a "normal" earthquake, is that right, Gordon?
GW: Yes, Charles, with some noteable exceptions: the quake/tsunami in Japan, the quake tsunami in Indonesia, the 1964 Anchorage quake/tsunami,
CC: OK, so I can see how the momentum, which when averaged out is just millimeters per year, could have been initiated by an impact event. But I don't believe that the event could have accelerated the continents to the speed that Fischer says, nor do I see what could have brought them to such an abrupt stop.
LK: I like Mike's explanation of fluidization as being involved. He said it's like landslides along continental slopes, where the rock slides horizontally for long distances [on the seafloor].
GW: I'm dubious on fluidization as the mechanism... heat increases friction and vice-versa. Am I just plain wrong about heat and friction?
Regardless, I believe that friction between the cont plate and ocean plates of the Pacific caused the slowdown and the mountain/trench building orogenies.
LK: Heat reduces friction and there may be ionization too.
- Gordon, that's what Mike says too, that friction is what caused the continents to slow down and heat up, causing mountain building.
CC: In my model, the lithosphere slides on a frictionless Moho, which is a thin (1 meter) layer of supercritical fluid, which is compressible, and frictionless. So tectonic motion doesn't require mantle plumes, nor the energy sufficient to fight friction at the crust/mantle boundary.
[LK: Mike referred to the Moho too.]
**CC: But this doesn't mean that the continents could have shifted thousands of kilometers in a day in my model. Mountains have roots, and moving the continents rapidly WOULD have forced friction. So in my model, electric currents in the Moho keep it molten (or rather, supercritical), but when mountain roots start pressing against the mantle, the tectonic motion has to wait for the electric currents to melt the rock. (I'll elaborate on that if you want.)
GW: Mountain roots are originating at the same time as the buildup, due to isostasy.
CC: Yes, but what I'm saying is that irregularities in the underside of the crust match up with complementary irregularities in the mantle. Then, for plate shifting to occur, one and/or the other has to undergo deformation. My problem with that is that it would take more energy than seems available. So I'm saying that the Moho is 1 meter thick, and hot enough to be supercritical. And it has an electric current in it. If plate shifting occurs, the irregularities don't match up quite so well, and that 1-meter gap gets reduced. The bad news is that the crust starts to run the risk of "running aground" as it shifts on the mantle.
[LK: You mean running aground during the major continental drift event?
CC: No -- I'm talking about the minor events, as we see today.] The good news is that the reduced gap forces more electric current through a smaller area, which produces more heat. So suppose there used to be a consistent 1-meter gap between the crust and the mantle. But then the crust shifted. Now the irregularities (e.g., mountain roots) result in there being only a 1/2 meter gap between the crust and the mantle. But then that heats up, and melts the rock, re-establishing the gap, and preventing the [ship-wise] "grounding".
LK: Charles, wouldn't the supercontinent have had a root in the mantle with the Moho between them there too?
GW: ??why?
CC: Yes.
LK: So if a water chamber were down there, it wouldn't blow out at the thicker part of the supercontinent, would it? Or wasn't it so thick? Did there have to be a weakness in the supercontinent for the Americas to split off?
GW: But due to the aplasticity of the crust the mountainforming "front" end is also more brittle, with many fissures and faults, thus we see the subsequent formation of the volcanic chains at those locations. Thicker but weaker, that's why I noted above that the roots are of the same nature as the mountains, with the notable difference that due to the same forces you are referring to much melting is occuring there, producing magmas and the like which extrude into the weak upper crust.
CC: Hang on right there...
I also have a totally different idea on volcanoes. I don't think that high pressure magma can get forced up through cracks in the crust. Rather, I think that cracks in the crust, which are common around faults due to the inelastic deformation, enable electric currents. A microfracture just 1 nano-meter wide can drop the electrical resistance of granite, from over 2 mega-ohms, down to about 300 olms. The result is an electric current, and then can melt the rock, due to ohmic heating. And I'm convinced that such electric currents, between the surface and the Moho (or at least between the ground table and the Moho) are what open up magma tubes. If it were not for that, there wouldn't be the concentration of heat into a tubelike structure that could create such a vent, since heat propagates outward radially. And high-pressure rock is a fair thermal conductor. (Cooler rock is a poor conductor.) But what we're seeing is a vertical shaft, from the Moho to the surface. This is not a characteristic of thermodynamics, but it IS a characteristic of electric currents.
- The significance of this is huge. Take the worst case scenario -- Yellowstone. There is no known way to prevent volcanic eruptions, much less at supervolcanoes. But what if it is an electric current that is generating the heat to pressurize the magma chamber? All we have to do is go about 100 km away, and drill a bore hole about 5 km deep, which will attract all of the telluric currents in the area, because it will fill up with highly conductive ground water. With no electric currents flowing through the magma chamber at Yellowstone, it will cool down, and eventually freeze over -- problem solved. A bore hole 5 km deep would cost about 20 million dollars to drill, which is within reach for humankind. So there's a practical way to prevent a mass extinction event.
GW: I'm not concerned so much with the mechanism; what you are saying is plausible. But the geography shows that generally volcanoes form not in the heights of the mount ranges [some exceptions] but on the lowland adjacent to the ranges
CC: Volcanoes occur where there is crustal deformation. I'm saying that the deformation creates the microfractures that enable the flow of electric currents. So under a given stress, it would make sense that the mountains do not undergo deformation, since they're thicker. A rigid material will always fail where it is thinnest. So the crust next to the mountains gets the deformation.
GW: I'm ok with that explanation.
CC: BTW, I'm saying that this is the same mechanism that causes earthquakes -- tectonic pressure causes crustal buckling, and then currents can flow through the microfractures. The current heats the crust, which causes more tectonic pressure, which increases the buckling. Thus it's a positive feedback loop, resulting in a rapid increase in pressure, which causes the rupture. The surface heating prior to the rupture cannot be explained as deformation, since it's elastic.

====================postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 02, 2016 9:37 pm
- Continental Drift During Or Long After the Flood?
- Gordon, I think you stated earlier on this thread that an unusually large impact off east Africa caused months-long rapid continental drift, which caused the Great Flood and mountain uplift during the latter phase of the Flood. Is this correct?
- But weren't there a lot of plants and animals, including mammoths, suddenly frozen in the Arctic after the Flood? How could they have survived in the Arctic during and shortly after the Flood? Why would the Flood not have drowned all of them and buried them under sediment? And would it not have taken a few centuries for life to return to the Arctic after the Flood?
- Do you agree that the Flood had to occur on the supercontinent, before it split up, because the rock and fossil types on opposite shores of the Atlantic Ocean match up well? If the Flood had occurred after continental drift ended, the rock and fossil types on opposite shores would not line up well at all. Right? If continental drift took several months to get the continents to near their present locations, they would have been moving under 2 miles per hour. Long runout underwater landslides move much faster than that when they move horizontally on the seafloor. Don't they? If they moved too slowly, friction would quickly stop them. Right? Same with continents. Moving too slowly, the friction would not allow them to move so far.
- So, for those reasons, Mike Fischer's and Baumgardner's suggestions for the sequence of catastrophes seems most reasonable to me. Baumgardner implied that a large body orbited the Earth 5 or 6 times during the Flood on a long ellipse, which raised very high tsunamis once a month laying down sediment deposits each month with unconformities between them. Fischer puts the impact, continental drift and mountain uplift a few centuries after the Flood, when plants and animals have had time to repopulate the Arctic and then drift movement toward the pole resulted in the sudden freezing. If drift had taken a few months time, animals would have had time to leave the Arctic before the continents moved into the bitter cold region. Am I overlooking something important?
- By the way, Gordon, your info about climate being universally warm from the Cambrian down to the early Pleiocene, after which seasons set in, seems very significant. I'm glad to know about that.
____________________Postby webolife » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:33 am
- From Cambrian UP to the Pleistocene.
- I'm ok with the Madagascar impact suggestion, but I wasn't the one who made it. The months long drift episode works for me, although I'm friendly toward additional small "spurts" of drift after the main flood events; the other timelines don't fit well in my model.
- The friction issue is problematic, but speed doesn't help the problem, rather exacerbates it I think. There are too many unknowns to feasibly evaluated the various theories, even for standard continental drift timelines... we have a fingernail-growth slow rate today, due most reasonably to "braking" friction. How things happened before that [and how fast] is conjectural... I'm happy with the several months.

Webpage: Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field: Since Continental Drift occurred during the Great Flood and largely caused it, the magnetic reversals on the seafloors must have occurred rapidly too ...

- The idea that vulcanism occurred after the flood subsided, 5 months after the impact, is interesting. I suppose with all the heat built up from the continental sliding, vulcanism and mountain uplift and subsidence would have been natural. ...

====================postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:47 pm
- The Great Flood
In the thread, Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology at
- Gordon, Oard says there are 3 Creationist theories about the endpoint of the Great Flood:
1. Permian/Precambrian; 2. Cretaceous/Tertiary; 3. End of Cenozoic. Do you agree with #3?
- I'd like to have a handier way to represent all of the "time periods" in the geological column. So, starting at the top, I'd like to refer to the Cenozoic as 1, Mesozoic: 2, Paleozoic: 3, Proterozoic: 4, Archean: 5, Hadean: 6. The divisions I then number as 1a Quatenary, 1b Tertiary, 2a Cretacious, 2b Jurassic, 2c Triassic, 3a Permian, 3b Carboniferous, 3c Devonian, 3d Silurian, 3e Ordovician, 3f Cambrian, 4a Precambrian. Conventional dates are:
1: 0-2Myr; 66M; 2: 144M; 208M; 245M; 3: 286M; 320M; 360M; 408M; 438M; 505M; 4: 570M etc.
- Oard says the 2nd school of thought thinks "Cenozoic strata would be post-Flood" and it accepts the "dam-breach hypothesis for the origin of the Grand Canyon" in the late Cenozoic. "Great tectonic uplift occurred during the Cenozoic ... the post-Flood period". He adds that it provides no evidence for uplift being post-Flood, but I think there's great evidence for that, which I'll get to below.
- But first I have another question. I think you said you don't think Noah's ark necessarily landed on Mt. Ararat, but may have landed near it. In that case the mountains could have uplifted later. Could they not?
- Here's my thinking on why mountains must have uplifted a few centuries after the flood, which I partly discussed earlier in this thread. Mammoths and other mammals froze very abruptly in the Arctic and the likeliest cause was rapid continental drift, which moved the northern continents northward into the Arctic. Many mammoths and other animals and trees seem to have been washed into the Arctic Ocean by a flood that swept over Siberia, probably due to the continental drift. The drift was most likely caused by a huge impact off east Africa, which provided the horizontal compressive forces necessary to uplift mountains. Grand Lake and Hopi Lake formed during the continental drift event during mountain uplift and they drained catastrophically sometime later, forming the Grand Canyon.
____________________Postby webolife » Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:09 am
- Agreements... Most of Oard.
- Cenozoic sometime around the Pliocene/Pleistocene. Remember that a stratum is not directly indicative of an exact time relationship, but of event. Prior to sometime in the Pliocene all fossils down to the Cambrian indicate a tropical or subtropical clime, afterward, we see diverse climate divisions, indicative of a line of demarcation between evidence of a pre-flood world and the world which followed, due to what I dare to presume was a geologically rapid change in both the atmosphere and the topography. The arctic was not climatically identifiable prior to this time as indicated by the warm weather fossils found in the upper latitudes. It developed later. Continents drifting northward, which is likely, encountered colder climes than in its original position. This may very well have initiated the rapid cooling that started the glaciation and froze some of the mammoths.
"Harar" used after the flood description probably indicates mountain ranges, and Ararat is derived from that term. That being said, the mountain ranges arose in connection with the drift, but it is virtually certain that volcanoes rose up after the mountain ranges.
- Flaws...
- Using terms like "most likely" for something which is pure speculation.
Assuming that drift [and therefore orogeny] occurred sometime after the flood, rather than during or in the end times of the flood. This, if presumed to have happened in a relatively short time-frame, would have resulted in more cataclysmic deformation and transformation of the earth than the flood it was alleged to have followed.

__TIAHUANACO. [During Supercontinent Breakup] Titicaca, at 12,000 feet altitude, is the highest navigable lake in the world. 4,000 years ago Titicaca was on sea level. At 11,500 feet, a whitish streak runs along the side of the mountain range for over 300 miles, composed of the calcified remains of marine plants, formerly on the seashore. In fact, many lakes up in the Andes region are completely salt. A watermark of salt along the Titicaca lake shore now runs at an angle to the water level. On the beach of this lake high in the mountains, there are seashells as well as traces of seaweed. Even today, various sea creatures (including sea horses) survive in the lake. Only a few intermediate surf lines can be detected, so the elevation could not have proceeded gradually.
-Traces of a sizeable city lie at the southern side of the lake. Of 400 acres of ruins, only about ten percent have been excavated. endless agricultural terraces, now abandoned, rise as high as 18,400 feet above sea level, and continue up under the snow. Such an abundance of cornfields must have supported a huge population. After the disaster, the populace lay buried in gullies that had become mass graves, covered by silt.
-The remains of an ocean quay is known as the Puma Punka, near the stadium of Tiahuanaco. One of the construction blocks from which the pier was fashioned weighs an estimated 440 tons. One wharf is big enough to take hundreds of ships.
-The Subterranean Temple, the Kalasasaya [and] the Akapana are precisely oriented to the cardinal directions of the PRESENT DAY. Tiahuanaco’s buildings are not oriented to the pre-Flood axis, but are exactly oriented to the compass points of today’s post-2345 BC world, with its new axial tilt. The depictions among the ruins of Tiahuanaco of numerous now extinct animals are readily explainable.
-The construction and use of reed boats on Lake Titicaca are identical to the reed boats of ancient Egypt. Many of the building blocks in Tiahuanaco are held together by large copper clamps shaped like an I. Others (now dismantled) were held together by silver rivets, similar to the Egyptian ruins on Elephantine Island on the Nile. Copper trepanning instruments of Tiahuanaco (for opening the cranium) were identical to those used by the Egyptians – as were the methods used! They point to direct contact between Tiahuanaco and ancient Egypt, as contemporary civilizations. A French engineer came upon an ancient carved rock hidden by dense jungle close to a river, which recorded the journey of an early Egyptian priest to what is now Bolivia (the land of Tiahuanaco). The inscription gave directions to silver and gold mines.
-Mountain Forming Witnessed. Various tribes of the Americas witnessed new mountains being raised and others flattened (Karl Brugger, The Chronicle of Akakor. 1977). A recent example was during an earthquake off the northern tip of Sumatra on December 26, 2004, the sea bottom in the Straits of Malacca uplifted almost 4,000 feet in only about 3 minutes. The depth was cut from 4,060 feet to 105 feet (Star newspaper, Kuala Lumpur, January. 13, 2005, quoting a report in the shipping journal Portsworld). Sonar images from British navy ship HMS Scott showed the massive uplift of a large area 10 kilometres wide and up to 1.5 kilometres high (4,800 feet plus).

_4) =========================Postby Lloyd » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:45 pm
Gordon, are you open to the possibility, as Mike Fischer concludes, that mountain uplift and the Ice Age did not occur till a few hundred years after the Great Flood? The deaths of Arctic animals by sudden freezing, due to continental drift moving two continents near to the north pole, and causing mountain uplift at the same time, seems to require that the Flood, which deposited nearly all of the fossil-bearing strata, occurred enough time earlier for the animals to have repopulated the Arctic region while it was still warm. I know you say Noah was said to have witnessed mountain uplift, but could that have been minor hills, or conflation of stories?

_4) =========================Postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:08 pm
... The Asteroid Bombardment caused the breakup of the Supercontinent and the rapid movement of the continents apart to near their present positions. The movement of continents largely caused the Great Flood tsunamis. The Great Flood caused Extinctions and Fossil formation. The slowing of Continental Drift by friction caused Mountain Uplift and Vulcanism. Receding Flood waters caused massive Erosion and the heated oceans caused evaporation and snowfall at higher latitudes, which was Glaciation in the one and only Ice Age.

I think the following is a rather objective analysis of others' findings on Solar System Chronology.
. Origin.
The Earth and the Moon are of indeterminate ages.
>6k. Supercontinent.
A collision with an asteroid partly formed a supercontinent on Earth and possibly also formed the Moon over 6,000 years ago. The land had no mountains. Earth was shrouded in a much thicker atmosphere.
>6k. Precambrian Strata.
A close encounter with the Moon or an asteroid caused tsunamis that formed pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock strata on the Earth without fossils, also over 6,000 years ago.
6k+. Life.
Life originated on Earth at least 6,000 years ago. Dinosaurs dominated the supercontinent. The climate on the supercontinent centered on the equator was warm.
5k. Great Flood.
A close encounter with a large body caused tsunamis that formed sedimentary rock strata about a mile thick containing fossils on the supercontinent about 5,000 years ago. Many large meteors impacted the Earth. The dinosaurs were mostly wiped out. Much of the atmosphere was lost.
5-4.5k. Mammals.
The supercontinent became dominated by large mammals after the flood.
4.5k. Conflagration.
Large meteors hit the Yucatan, Hudson Bay and possibly Siberia. They caused a conflagration and deposited ash and glass debris about 4,500 years ago.
4.4k. Supercontinent Breakup.
A very large meteor hit the supercontinent north of Madagascar about 4,400 years ago. The impact broke it apart and the continents slid over the Moho layer to near their present positions in a short time. This flooded large areas and killed most of the large mammals. The northern continents were pushed north and Antarctica south into freezing climates. Mountains and volcanoes formed on the continents.
4.4-. Ice Age.
Volcanoes and hurricanes put a lot of dust in the air, which cooled the air and caused precipitation of heavy rain and snow. Glaciation covered much of Europe and North America. This lasted a few hundred years.
4.4-4.2k. Resettlement.
Humans migrated and started bronze-age civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, India, China and possibly Brazil about 4,200 years ago. Myths and religions commemorated the former Golden Age.
>6k-4.4k. Golden Age.
Venus, Mars and Earth were planets of Saturn until about 4,400 years ago, when the system destabilized and broke up, causing major impacts on Earth, the Moon and other bodies.

Good news and bad news: the bad news is that society has been increasingly corrupted by corporate profit-making and exploitation, using fraud and other deception.
This Catastrophic Geology is not based on Religious Beliefs. The U.S. started out as a place to practice the Christian ideal of sharing love for all and that has never gone away, but it has come to have much less influence on the public. The Christian ideal was never very pure though either, as it was mixed with irrational fear of God instead of being pure love. Now corporate greed has become the dominant influence in the U.S. Not that profit-making is a bad thing; it isn't. Some, like John Stossel, say greed is a good thing. That's shallow thinking. Profit-making isn't greed, but is merely meeting one's needs. Greed is an addiction to wanting more than one needs, which results in shortages and thus makes it harder for others to meet their own needs.
Nearly all our institutions have become corrupted by corporate greed, even including science and health care. Since the purpose of "everything" has become to make maximum corporate profit, instead of to help everyone, a great deal of fraud has entered into these institutions. The good news is that we now have an opportunity to re-evaluate all of the claims of the institutions, find and highlight all of the fraudulent claims and move forward with new findings that will benefit all.
In this paper I will start with re-examining the history of the solar system. The history of health care, politics and economics would probably have more immediate benefit for the public, but I'll write about that later. Better understanding of the history of the solar system should have benefits for the public as well, since it should lead to better means for humanity to colonize space, i.e. the rocky bodies in space.
The first space work priority should be protecting Earth from asteroid and meteor impacts and cleaning up near space so satellites and spacecraft can orbit Earth or travel away from Earth without colliding with space junk. Next should be setting up bases on the Moon and then on Mars, and later inside asteroids, comets and other moons. Later, Venus should be made habitable by causing some icy asteroids to crash onto it. Earth itself can also harbor a lot more life in the Arctic and Antarctic and on the oceans and even in near space.

- By the way, the Bible very likely is wrong about some things, although the errors may be mostly innocent transcriber errors. But it's apparently not very wrong about the Great Flood. It may be wrong or misunderstood about Noah's Ark.
2. Sedimentary Rock Strata & Fossil Formation.
Religious geologists in the 1800s probably had naive ideas about the Great Flood. The Bible gives the impression that constant heavy rain for 40 days caused the flood and the waters calmly rose up until they overtopped the highest mountains and all the land creatures drowned.
- More recent religious geologists have come up with much better ideas. The flood was more likely caused by tsunamis and the tsunamis were likely caused by a large asteroid or the Moon coming close enough to Earth to cause huge tidal waves for several months. And tall mountains likely did not exist yet, so the tsunamis did not need to be so high.
- An amateur religious geologist friend says that the Bible mentions that "matar" fell during the flood and he thinks the matar means meteors and the fountains of the deep were meteor splashes in the oceans.
- If the flood waters rose calmly just from rain and maybe underground waters, the sedimentary rock strata and fossils would not be well explained, but if tsunamis caused the flood, that would explain the strata and fossils very well. The tsunamis would have brought mud and sand from the continental margins onto the land, burying animals and plants and forming strata containing fossils.
- Antibiblical geologists are now stuck with the most implausible arguments for strata and fossil formation. They must imagine there were some mountains of pure sand, other mountains of pure clay and others of pure lime, that took turns eroding away so as to deposit in broad, shallow seas first, e.g. a stratum of sand that became sandstone, then a stratum of lime that became limestone, then a stratum of clay that became shale or mudstone, and repeating that process numerous times, with each stratum taking thousands of years to form, usually without mixing with any of the other mountain erosion materials. This slow sedimentation was somehow supposed to bury all of the organisms that are now fossils. They solve the problem by ignoring it and seldom mentioning it. I'll go into details later in section [1-2c].
__Get pictures of strata__
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 09:28:38 pm by Admin »

Social Buttons