FUNDAY

Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
Hi Lloyd,
Oard does a good analysis of Walter Brown's Flood model.  In doing so, he makes several points that best fit the Shock Dynamics model: 1) "the woolly mammoth population increased rapidly to millions in the first few hundred years after the Flood."  These and many other animals replaced the dinosaurs, and spread to their preferred habitats on the post-Flood protocontinent before it was divided.  And the timing of the SD event is about 300 years after the Flood, in the "days of Peleg" (Septuagint); 2) in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day by the collision of India and Southeast Asia with the Asia mainland, producing the sudden cold climate Brown referred to without rolling the whole Earth, for which there is no evidence; 3) "The woolly mammoths were buried in loess (wind-blown silt), commonly found up to 60 m (200 ft) thick in the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska."  That is an enormous amount of wind-blown silt suddenly burying mammoths.  The SD event is an ideal generator of such a storm, and it is hard to imagine any other source.

I have no interest in contacting Michael Oard.  The basic Shock Dynamics theory was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in 1992, and there was no response from any of the readers.  I presented it at the Third International Conference on Creation in 1994, being on stage as the second piece of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was falling into Jupiter, quite a coincidence for a meteorite-impact theory, and there was no interest from anyone at the conference.  Everyone was enthralled, however, with the rollout of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics by 5 creationist Ph.D.s at that conference, and the YEC love affair with it continues.  I was not allowed to submit either of two papers on SD at the next conference, being told by creationist Ph.D. reviewers that it would just "confuse" the people.  My discussions with YEC speakers at the 1994 conference had no consequence, except with Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard Northrup.  He told me that he had been struggling without success for years to convince YEC leaders that they were packing too much Earth history into the Flood event.  He showed me his biblical time line of events, and I found SD fit his post-Flood catastrophic requirements.  Bernard died a few years ago without having made a difference in creationist thinking.  I am not going to waste my time with members of the creationist intelligentsia.  Their severe oppression by the evolutionist establishment over decades seems to have hardened their positions against any significant changes, even those proposed by allies.  I am content to have SD explained on the internet, open to "new wineskins" who run across it.  Regrettably, very few people know enough about geology to judge it fairly, and most who do know something were taught it in the context of Plate Tectonics theory.

-----

3/1/17; 2:41 PM
Hi Mike. If the SD impact raised the Colorado Plateau 300 years after the Great Flood, was the Grand Canyon eroded during the Flood, or at the time of the SD event? Oard said the upper strata were eroded by sheet erosion. Would that have occurred during the Flood? And then would the rest of the Grand Canyon have eroded during the SD event? Oard said Grand and Hopi Lakes didn't exist and much more water was needed to erode the Canyon than what would have been in those lakes. The SD impact should have caused a lot of flooding, so is that how the Canyon eroded? Do you know how to determine whether the upper strata at the Grand Canyon were eroded during the Great Flood or during the SD event?

Dong Choi sent me several PDF files. The first one showed their findings that the global temperature was gradually rising until about 1996, then there was a sudden jump several tenths of a degree Celsius, then it continued to rise gradually since then. They show that #4-6 earthquake activity jumped about two years earlier and followed the same trends. They show a map of Earth heat, mostly from the ocean ridge system, which they say is responsible for Earth's temperature. I posted their map and graphs at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150 where you can view them. The map shows Antarctica and Greenland as rather warm too, so I don't understand that. I guess I need to ask Mr. Choi about that. Or do you understand it?

They also showed graphs indicating that major quakes and volcanic eruptions have occurred during low sunspot periods, esp. during little ice ages. Today Mr. Choi sent me more stuff. This includes a paper on the New Madrid fault. The paper has a world map showing two major anticlines in the western and eastern hemispheres. See the same post link above. The eastern one runs along near the northern edge of the Australian plate through Indonesia then north to the central tip of Siberia. The western anticline runs from SE of Brazil NW to the Gulf of Mexico, then north through New Madrid and up through Hudson's Bay and Baffin Island I think. They call the anticlines antipodal. Can you see the map of the two anticlines? They have very nearly the same shapes. Do you have an idea how they were formed? Would they have formed before, during or after the SD event? If you can figure out the likely cause of those two anticlines, we could probably make a better impression on Mr. Choi for the SD model.

I'll try to send an attachment soon of their New Madrid paper.