Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon May 31, 2021 4:27 am

63314

Here's a quick link to my previous post regarding:
PANGAEA BROKE UP AFTER, NOT DURING(?), THE GREAT FLOOD
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =525#p5167

HERE IS A SUMMARY OF THE NEWGEOLOGY EARTH HISTORY TIMELINE https://www.newgeology.us/presentation30.html
1. PREFLOOD
- Dinosaurs @ Pangaea; Man & Mammals @ E.Antarctica;
- Sediments formed @ Pangaea's perimeter;
- Pangaea was a lowland supercontinent
2. FLOOD
- Meteorites hit Earth & Moon, removed atmosphere, caused rain, made craters & flood basalts
- Flood washed sediments with degassed lime ashore & buried marine creatures in Paleozoic strata, then dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata
3a. POSTFLOOD FAUNA
- Mammals & humans spread from E.Antarctica to Pangaea & became populous
3b. POSTFLOOD IMPACT
- Chicxulub crater formed from an impact after the Flood which spread iridium-laden impact dust worldwide
4. PANGAEA BREAKUP
- Asteroid impact north of Madagascar split up Pangaea;
- Continents spread apart via rapid continental drift;
- Impulse & brake mountain ranges formed;
- Global volcanism ensued;
- Floods buried mammals in Cenozoic strata;
- Nile River rerouted;
- Canada & Siberia moved northward, causing wind storms that killed many large mammals in dust ((& rock ice, but not by flood?))
5. POST-BREAKUP
- Civilization began in Egypt ((& Sumeria))
- Hot Atlantic & Indian Ocean seafloors, volcanism & India flood basalts ((& meteoric dust)) caused glaciation (Ice Age) at higher latitudes & altitudes

CAUSE OF THE GREAT FLOOD
I assume Mike thinks the flood was caused by ocean impacts, but I don't think those would have been enough. Baumgardner's model has an elliptically orbiting body (like the Moon?) causing tidal waves about monthly at perigee. The reason his model seems partly correct is that on the continents there are 5 or 6 megasequences of conforming rock strata with unconformities between each megasequence, so it looks like there was something causing flooding regularly for several months. I mean at about monthly intervals something caused tidal waves carrying & depositing sediments for some days, then they stopped for a while, then restarted again and the cycle repeated 5 or 6 times during the entire Flood. That sounds like something an elliptically orbiting body would cause.

Mike said planetary orbits (like the Moon's) cannot be changed so easily. But gravity is not the only force involved in planetary motions. Electrical forces are also involved. Charles Chandler determined that the Titius-Bode Law is likely due to electrical forces between the planets, which repel each other enough to separate their orbits the way they do. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369

YOUNGER DRYAS EVENT ON HIS TIMELINE
His timeline doesn't seem to include the YD event. Paraphrasing Mike's last email, the Grand Canyon eroded/formed when the ice sheet melt flooded the Colorado plateau (His prior email seemed to say that it formed during the Pangaea Breakup). His timeline has the ice sheet forming soon after the Pangaea Breakup (which he calls Shock Dynamics), so I gather that he would say the Younger Dryas event which melted the ice sheet would have occurred a few centuries after the Pangaea Breakup. And the Grand Canyon formed from Younger Dryas floods. His model also includes, after formation of the Earth, formation of the supercontinent, Pangaea, (at the same time as formation of the Moon. See https://www.newgeology.us/presentation44.html ). So his cataclysms timeline would perhaps be:
C1) X millennia BC: Formation of Earth;
C2) Y millennia BC: Formation of Pangaea & the Moon (via impact);
C3) 3-4,000 BC: Great Flood (with impacts);
C4) 2,700-4,000 BC: Chicxulub impact;
C5) 2,600-3,500 BC: Pangaea Breakup (with impacts);
C6) 2,300-3,000 BC: Younger Dryas Event (with impacts)

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Jun 05, 2021 4:23 am

64519

COMPARING CREATIONIST FLOOD MODELS
http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-1 ... 05/#msg305

I'm discussing privately with Mike F of Newgeology.us his catastrophism model and comparing it to Creationists'. The highlighted title above is to an article that I'm asking him to comment on. I hope to compare these models with Cardona's and Saturnist models as well as my own, which is always mutating a little. Readers are welcome to check out the article, which I've copied to a private forum, which is readable, I think.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Jun 06, 2021 1:39 am

64703

This site wasn't accessible earlier today. Sure glad it didn't stay that way long.

CATASTROPHISM DISCUSSION WITH MIKE OF NEWGEOLOGY.US

Mike at https://www.newgeology.us/ agreed for me to post the following here. I'm adding titles.

TORRENTIAL RAINFALL LED TO GREAT FLOOD ON LOWLAND PANGAEA

MF: In my view, the cause of the Great Flood was a meteorite swarm that brought down the ice/vapor canopy from the mesosphere, at the height of noctilucent clouds, producing 40 days of rain, but the meteorites did not cause tsunamis by impact. The collapse of the ice/vapor barrier brought rain upon the whole Earth. The rising global water level encroached on Pangaea in progressive waves. This would happen as long as the rain continued to fall.

FORMATION OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK

LK: Why would there be ocean waves from rainfall? And why would there be much sediment in the waves to form most of the sedimentary rock? I think that would require tsunamis.

MF: Waves on a lake or ocean are wind-driven. Tsunamis are from a large disturbance, such as a big meteorite impact or displacement of seafloor in an earthquake, but don't forget Moon tides. The unique feature of the Flood is that water rose in all the oceans simultaneously. Moon tides brought high water progressively onto land that was, unlike today, low everywhere. All tsunamis/tidal waves carry sediment. As a Young Biosphere Creation member, my view is that continental crust was formed as refined mantle melt rock that eroded to sediment over a very long time. That is what was carried and sorted by the tsunamis/tidal waves, as the work of Guy Berthault demonstrates. [See http://sedimentology.fr/ ]

GRAND CANYON FORMATION

MF: There is evidence that the YD impact(s) brought firestorms. The heat could have been a factor in ice sheet melting. However, I agree with ICR leaders that it was a dam breach that led to cutting the Grand Canyon. Melt water built up behind a berm, and it was released in a torrent when the berm failed.

LK: Do you mean the ice sheet covered the Colorado plateau and the melt water from there formed the canyon? Walter Brown said banks of two ancient lakes breached and the water in them eroded the Grand Canyon after the Great Flood, I think. Michael Oard et al argued that the Great Flood eroded the canyon. One of Oard's followers has an article at Creation.com that says waters of the Great Flood overtopped the Colorado plateau and started carving the canyon on the western side and continued eroding all the way to the east side. Should we review both sides of that discussion to see which side is best supported?

MF: Walt Brown has it about right. The Grand Canyon is clearly post-Flood.

[LK: Brown discussed the Grand Canyon starting here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp63713032
His explanation of how it formed is here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nyon4.html
Someone made a video about his model here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ4eVMd3_PE
And here are Oard's arguments against his model: https://creation.com/hydroplate-theory
I just skimmed this history of the spillover model: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/gr ... nd-canyon/ ]


TIDAL WAVES

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_range
Tidal range is the height difference between high tide and low tide.
... The typical tidal range in the open ocean is about 0.6 metres (2 feet) (blue and green on the map on the right). Closer to the coast, this range is much greater. Coastal tidal ranges vary globally and can differ anywhere from near zero to over 16 m (52 ft).[3] The exact range depends on the volume of water adjacent to the coast, and the geography of the basin the water sits in. Larger bodies of water have higher ranges, and the geography can act as a funnel amplifying or dispersing the tide.[4]

LK: According to that, the tide in the open ocean is only raised one foot above average, then it falls to one foot below average. That's not much tidal force for a Great Flood. The only reason tides get higher on shores is that the water is funneled into a narrower volume. The tides are actual tidal waves.

MF: That's today. Imagine the global water level rising hundreds of feet over 40 days and that Pangaea is fairly flat. Tides become greatly magnified along with their effects.

COMPARING 2 CREATIONIST FLOOD MODELS

LK: I copied an article from 2003 that compares 2 Creationist Flood models of Oard and Robinson at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-1 ... 05/#msg305
The second post there has Oard's statements against post-Flood catastrophes. They're a little dated, but they seem pretty relevant just the same. Do you have time to read that and maybe comment on the main points? The phrases in brackets are mine, to help locate main topics.

MF: I skimmed through it. Shock Dynamics geology puts the top of the Flood boundary at the top of the Cretaceous. Cenozoic strata, continental separation, and orogeny resulted from the SD event [some centuries after the Great Flood]. If someone doesn't "buy it", that is their opinion.

MY COMMENT
I hope to discuss Oard's arguments with Mike in more detail soon. By the way, the Cretaceous is the last stratum of the dinosaurs, I think. So Mike thinks the Great Flood sediments ended there, followed by later catastrophic sedimentation.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:45 pm

64921

Note: My previous post was made last night.

NATURAL DAM BREACH CAUSED GRAND CANYON FORMATION

I referenced the following article briefly in my previous post (in green letters). I also referenced Walter Brown's discussion there. I learned about Brown's dam breach model for Grand Canyon formation about ten years ago. I previously favored Wal Thornhill's model of electrical erosion of the Grand Canyon described in one or more TPODs (Thunderbolts Picture/s of the Day) from c. 2005 or so. When I read in Brown's webpages about the likely former existence of large lakes in the Arizona and Utah area, it became apparent that the dam breach model was more plausible than electrical erosion, since the canyon formed where the former lake dam would have breached. I guess it was 3 or 4 years ago that I read Michael Oard's arguments against Brown's model, also referenced above, which persuaded me then that the canyon formed during the Great Flood, instead of from a later dam breach of a lake. I figured there was a lot more water available to cause erosion during the Flood and the sediments would have been softer then too. But now Mike Fischer of Newgeology.us says Brown's model is about right, and after reading the following article online, I'm again persuaded that the dam breach model seems more likely. By the way, I first read MF's Newgeology site over ten years ago and I discussed it extensively on this forum then and occasionally since then. Now from the following article I learned that Steve Austin and others have had a dam breach model before Brown did and their model may be better than Brown's, but I haven't yet had access to their findings, aside from the following.

Remembering Spillover Erosion of Grand Canyon
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/gr ... nd-canyon/
[Following are highlights or main points from this online article.]
__Where Are the Lake Deposits?
_If an enormous lake breached a natural topographic dam through the east side of the Kaibab Upwarp, one would expect to find evidence in sediment diagnostic of such a lake. Quiet lake water traps wind-blown silt and clay, and the dissolved minerals in the water could precipitate calcium carbonate particles to form a type of limestone called tufa. [Steve] Austin recalls, “The quiet water of a lake could allow accumulation of clay and calcium carbonate particles just east of Grand Canyon. If such sediment layers exist, it would be like court-room reports of a smoking gun at the scene of a crime.” Austin further describes his thinking, “In 1987 we were suggesting that late-Flood and post-Flood uplift of the Colorado Plateau trapped water in the saucer-shaped depression on top of the Colorado Plateau. It would be a lake formed after the Global Flood of Noah’s day but just as the Ice Age began. Kaibab Upwarp is the key topographic barrier to retain a lake in northeastern Arizona as the lake map attempts to depict. If the early post-Flood Hopi Lake existed just above 6,000 ft elevation in Arizona, then its presence would likely obligate a huge lake or lakes in Utah and Colorado.”
_For several years Austin had been searching for silt and limestone deposits that might be critical evidence that Hopi Lake stood just above 6,000 ft elevation on the east side of Kaibab Upwarp. Austin studied calcium carbonate deposits in the Cape Solitude area on Navajo lands just east of Grand Canyon and other deposits adjacent to Blue Moon Bench (see fig. 4). These deposits resemble the shoreline lake limestone called tufa. Robert Scarborough, a geologist who conducted graduate research on the Hopi Buttes silt, agreed with Austin. Scarborough had also been looking for ancient lake sediment east of Grand Canyon. Together, in 1988, they affirmed privately that ancient Hopi Lake was impounded just east of the Kaibab Upwarp, and that spillover of that lake likely eroded Grand Canyon.17
_... The 2008 National Geographic made-for-TV documentary “Grand Canyon Spill-Over Theory” features Dr. John Douglass and his stream table experiment at scale 1:60,000 that modeled Grand Canyon’s overspilling lake.28 A second stream table experiment of lake spillover by Douglass appears in the History Channel made-for-TV documentary “How the Earth Was Made — Grand Canyon” (2009, season 2, episode 1).29
__[Ancient Colorado River Delta]
_... A final puzzle piece that remains to be integrated within the Grand Canyon spillover story is the ancient marine delta of the Colorado River. Dr. Rebecca Dorsey, geologist at University of Oregon, and her coworkers favor catastrophic spillover, pointing out that the Colorado River sediment appears very abruptly and recently within the marine mudstone of the Imperial Formation (Pliocene) in Southern California (Dorsey et al 2018). Here green claystone also marks the rapid influx of river water.
__[The Dam Breach or Spillover Location]
_... Austin published in 1994 a map of lakes and description of the Bidahochi Formation with a defense of the breached dam hypothesis for erosion of Grand Canyon (Austin 1994). The global flood made strata of Grand Canyon, the retreat of flood waters beveled the plateau surface, and the structural dam breached in the post-Flood period. Austin favored the initial breach of Kaibab Upwarp at the northwestern margin of Hopi Lake.
_... In 1989 Dr. Walter Brown further developed the breached dam hypothesis proposing that a big lake in Utah (he called “Grand Lake”) was the essential trigger agent in eroding Grand Canyon (Brown 2008).35
_... Austin calls it Canyonlands Lake (fig. 4) and maintains the dispute misdirects discussions of Grand Canyon erosion, because Hopi Lake (aka Lake Bidahochi) is most likely the primary cause of breaching Kaibab Upwarp.
_... Austin, like the other spillover advocates, does not invoke a separate lake in Utah as being a contributing cause to the initial breaching of Kaibab Upwarp.42
__[Plateaus Tilted]
_... Austin and Holroyd continue to favor Austin’s 1987 “plateau tilting model” for Grand Canyon plateaus, and the notion has been borne out by recent tectonic study (Crow et al. 2014). According to Austin, those plateaus on the north side of the Colorado River have tilted down on the north side and up on the south side since drainage of the lakes. We can suppose more than 1,000 ft (300 m) elevation change on Kaibab Plateau, Kanab Plateau, and Marble Platform (with its included Paria Plateau subunit) since drainage of the lakes. Understanding of the tilted plateaus allows the configuration of those lakes to be approximated as shown in fig 4.
_... Austin and Holroyd believe that Canyonlands Lake failed first. Fig 4 suggests its elevation was 6,400 ft contained behind the formerly higher Echo Cliffs Monocline. We believe it spilled at Lees Ferry Spillover #1 (location in fig 4) into Hopi Lake basin that was largely vacant of a lake. The wide portion of Marble Canyon Spillway was excavated by flood flow from Canyonlands Lake. The addition of over 300 ft of new water to Hopi basin deposited the upper member of the Bidahochi Formation, likely disturbed magma beneath the lake’s floor, and created instability of the dam on the west side of Hopi basin. Kaibab Upwarp was the western barrier of Hopi Lake that failed at East Kaibab Spillover #2.
_... The configuration of these spillovers with knickpoint retreats was successfully modeled in the remarkable stream table experiment described by Douglass et al. 2020.
_... Later, channelized flow narrowly focused erosion as canyons deepened.
_... In Mike Oard’s view, Grand Canyon is a superposed submarine canyon! [i.e., when it was under the Great Flood]
__[The Lake Is Called Hopi Lake]
_... Further support for the idea that Hopi Lake was a big lake came from an unlikely source. It was the fish fossils. Jon Spencer and his coauthors (Spencer, Pearthree, and House 2008) described the fossil Pliocene fishes of the upper member of the Bidahochi Formation and noted their dissimilarity to fossil fishes downstream in Los Angeles Basin in Southern California. Instead, these authors noted that Bidahochi fishes possess striking similarity to fossil fishes in the Pliocene of the Snake River in Idaho. Spencer and his coauthors argued that the two Pliocene populations of fishes must be connected genetically when the upper Snake River was tributary to an enormous “closed drainage basin” on the Colorado Plateau that included a swiftly flowing river connected to Hopi Lake. Again, paleontology supports the lake. That explanation was reconfirmed and further developed by Douglass et al. (2020).
_... Most importantly, we have the observation of what appears to be lake deposits of the west side. Bob Scarborough and Richard Hereford studied a five-foot-thick freshwater limestone near Cape Solitude (location in fig. 4) just on the eastern side of Grand Canyon.51
_... It closely resembles in structure and composition Lake Bonneville “capping tufa” which is of undoubted lake origin (Felton et al. 2006).52
_... the incision of the Grand Canyon was initiated by the spill from Hopi Lake across an erosional scarp formed by the very resistant dipping Shinarump Conglomerate (Douglass 2011; Meek and Douglass 2001).54
_... Meteorologist Mike Oard writes of “no evidence for the lakes,” “no lake-bottom sediments,” and “no shorelines” (Oard 2010; 2016).55 When Oard writes universal negatives about “no evidence,” he seems to be expressing Godlike omniscience. Scientists know it takes just one affirmative example to disprove a universal negative.
__[Ice Age]
_... Holroyd says: “In early 1987 I asked a supervisor about the possibility of eventually publishing an article presenting the ancient lakes of the Colorado Plateau as glacial, like Ice Age Lake Bonneville in Utah...."
_... We can now imagine how small streams occupied Bidahochi Basin after Hopi Lake drained. It is now most likely that the local Ice Age stream channels at Crooked Ridge were eroded into the bed of the lake after the lake drained. The Crooked Ridge river gravel [turned out to be stream gravel] that, at first, appeared to be an insurmountable problem, has now contributed nicely to telling the story of the big lake and its drainage!

[MY COMMENT ON ICE AGE: Now I'm curious if there was much of an ice sheet on the Colorado Plateau after the Great Flood. This article mentions the Ice Age a few times, suggesting that there was glaciation there. But how thick was the ice sheet then? If it was significantly thick, it probably affected isostacy, i.e. up/down motion of the plateau. If it melted suddenly, the land likely rose higher as the ice melted. The meltwater would have contributed to the dam breach and canyon erosion. It seems likely that the ice sheet melted and the canyon formed during the Younger Dryas event, which included widespread conflagration. The heat may have come from a Saturn nova or flare. Impacts may also have come from debris around the Saturn configuration.]

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:49 am

65050

I already have something more to share.

MAPS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRATA MEGASEQUENCES: (CHRONOMETER?)

In other words, these maps may help determine the timeline for major catastrophic events. I was just looking over the following online paper and made some interesting observations.

Use of Sedimentary Megasequences to Re-create Pre-Flood Geography
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... roceedings
_p359 This shows an interesting map of Pangaea, much of it under shallow seas. The paper only deals with the Americas and Africa.
_p363 The Zuni megasequence (the one before the Cenozoic) covers the Gulf of Mexico and offshore from west & southeast Africa
_p364 It covers offshore from east South America
_p366 The Tejas megasequence (from Cenozoic to now) covers the Gulf of Mexico and offshore from east North America
_p367 It covers similar to p363, but also into the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea
_p368 It covers similar to p364, and also the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico and into the Caribbean Sea
_The first four megasequences, before Zuni and Tejas, do not cover the Gulf of Mexico or offshore areas in the Atlantic etc.

Floods likely deposited each megasequence. The Great Flood likely deposited one or more of the lower megasequences, probably the first 3 or 4. The Shock Dynamics asteroid strike that broke up Pangaea likely caused one or more megasequences, apparently the last 2, because they are the only ones that cover the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Atlantic, which didn't open up until Pangaea broke apart. The Younger Dryas impact event may have caused one or more megasequences as well, but that's less certain.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:26 am

Lloyd wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:45 pm NATURAL DAM BREACH CAUSED GRAND CANYON FORMATION
Can you please explain the geological and/or deluvial (flood-fluid) mechanisms which resulted in the Colorado River's specific morphologies without reference to RLC circuit theory as per here, here, and here, and without reference to arc discharge between out-of-phase circuits as per here.

Ensure your response includes experimental demonstration that solely hydrodeluvial processes can cause the specific fractal geometries ("faults", including specific angles of tributary branching) known or expected to be caused by RLC circuits/out-of-phase circuits in a sedimentary rock medium in which the rivers and lakes of the Colorado area now happily occupy.

Thanks.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:18 pm

65570

FLOODING VS EDM

JP, can you provide experimentally verified evidence that atmospheric and/or geological electrical forces alone can deposit megasequences of sediments that later lithify? Guy Berthault has provided such evidence for forces involved in normal Flooding. Walter Brown has provided explanations for how electrical forces likely accompanied the Great Flood and later Floods, which produced Earth's radioactive elements. Charles Chandler has shown that stars and planets form electrically and that impacts, as well as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes etc are also largely electrical phenomena. So I can believe that powerful electrical forces were involved in the shaping of mountain ranges etc in relatively minor ways. But the formation of mountain ranges likely resulted primarily from the Shock Dynamics asteroid impact that broke up Pangaea. Much of the energy of the huge impact, that formed a 500 mile diameter crater north of Madagascar, went into breaking up the supercontinent and in moving the resulting continents rapidly apart and in folding the sediments by horizontal compression into mountain ranges along the near and far edges of the continents that moved significantly. Electrical forces were likely present along surfaces, as well as in fractures and lineaments, but the momentum of the large impact is what provided most of the energy of mountain formation etc.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:54 pm

66428

LITHIFICATION CEMENTS, POST-FLOOD CATACLYSMS, YOUNGER DRYAS, NO MOON

Mike at NewGeology.us said on his site that the rock formed from the flooding caused by the Shock Dynamics asteroid impact event some centuries after the Great Flood is softer than rock formed from the Great Flood, because the latter had more calcium carbonate (?) cement in the flood waters caused by degassing of the oceans due to loss of atmosphere, which caused CO2 in the oceans to combine with calcium to form lime (?). The SD event produced sediments that contained less calcium carbonate, so the rocks are softer. I did a search of ICR.org and Creation.com, Creationist sites, to see how many articles they have that discuss cement in rock formation.
_Here are the articles with short excerpts I found that sound possibly relevant: http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-145/?message=307
_I haven't checked any of them out yet.
_Mike's model suggests that there were several post-Flood cataclysms, so I did a search for that too at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-145/?message=308
_Some Creationists say there were no post-Flood cataclysms, but others say differently.
_His model doesn't yet mention the Younger Dryas event, but I did a search on that at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-145/?message=309
_There apparently was no Moon ages ago, but some Flood models require a Moon, including Mike's apparently. So I did a search on no Moon on the Catastrophism.com site and posted the search results at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-145/?message=312
_If the Moon formed from the Earth, it must have formed before the Great Flood, since Earth would have been uninhabitable for a long time after the impact.
_That should give us plenty to study for a while.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:06 pm

66955

SEEKING THE TIME OF THE SATURN SYSTEM BREAKUP

TIME OF THE VENUS COMET

I found that Ev estimated the time of the Venus Comet. I posted Highlights from Ev Cochrane's paper, FOSSIL GODS, at https://futureschool.boards.net/thread/ ... comparison . On page 123 is this statement. "The natural form referenced by the MUÍ3-sign — i.e., the spiraling comet-like apparition presented by the planet Venus — disappeared from the ancient skies at some point between prehistoric times and the end of the Early Dynastic period. As the planet Venus settled into a more stable orbit, its heaven-spanning tail disappeared together with its terrifying aspect. At that decisive juncture in history new symbols were devised to describe Sumer’s greatest goddess."

Wikipedia says the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt lasted from c. 3150 BC – c. 2686 BC. So the cometary appearance of Venus would apparently have ended about 2700 BC. However, I don't know how accurate conventional dating is. I'll try to ask Ev his opinion on that.

This https://www.worldhistory.org/Enheduanna/ says, "The Akkadian poet Enheduanna (l. 2285-2250 BCE) is the world's first author known by name and was the daughter of Sargon of Akkad (Sargon the Great, r. 2334-2279 BCE)." She's the one who apparently wrote about Venus depositing venom upon the land, which was likely the time when Venus appeared to be comet-like. If she was an eye-witness, then the time of the end of the Venus Comet would have been about 2260 BC.

So there's a 440 year difference between the two dates. Hopefully, Ev can comment on that if I can get back in touch.

Wikipedia also said: "By about 3600 BC, Neolithic Egyptian societies along the Nile had based their culture on the raising of crops and the domestication of animals.[3]" That should be shortly after when the Shock Dynamics asteroid impact that broke up Pangaea occurred and caused the formation of the Nile River. However, that date is about a thousand years earlier than the time period I've been estimating. So I think the 3600 date is probably wrong.

PS, I discussed MAPS OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRATA MEGASEQUENCES recently in this post: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... 5219#p5198
It shows that the Zuni megasequence is the bottom one in the Gulf of Mexico. Zuni was apparently the last and uppermost megasequence deposited by the Great Flood. Since the Gulf likely formed during the breakup of Pangaea, which was after the Great Flood, there shouldn't be Zuni sediment in the Gulf, UNLESS.... Mike told me that the Zuni sediment likely got there by flood erosion during the breakup, or from coastal slumping.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Jun 19, 2021 7:54 pm

68279

2 PLATE TECTONICS MODELS VS SHOCK DYNAMICS (ASTEROID IMPACT)

_1. Under the Earth's crust is its mantle. The crust consists of continents, islands and ocean floors.
_a. In conventional Plate Tectonics, the continents are thought to move about over the molten mantle due to circulation cells in the mantle.
_b. The circulation cells are thought to be hundreds of kilometers deep and supposedly act like conveyor belts.
_c. Like conveyor belts move boxes or products, circulation cells in the mantle are thought to move continents and islands.
_d. Or you can think of the cells as being like water currents in lakes or oceans, that move driftwood.
_e. The continents appear to have been joined together in the past, but were moved apart somehow, forming the Atlantic and Indian Oceans etc.

_2. John Baumgardner (JB) has a tectonics model in which there was just one conveyor belt, or circulation cell.
_a. See http://creationwiki.org/Catastrophic_plate_tectonics
_b. The cell broke and moved the continents apart and then buoyed up Africa and maybe Eurasia.

_3. However, Thielmann and Kaus showed that mantle currents would be too weak to bend and break Earth's crust to form and move continents.
_a. They concluded that external forces would be needed.

_4. Mike Fischer (MF) discovered the solution in c. 1992; a large asteroid impact provided the external force.
_a. It broke up the supercontinent and moved the continents apart.
_b. See http://creationwiki.org/Shock_dynamics
_c. Circulation cells in the mantle were not needed; instead, the continents slid apart over the nearly friction-free plasma Moho layer under Earth's crust.
_d. See Charles Chandler on the Moho: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-11093

_5. Previously I showed this paper link: Use of Sedimentary Megasequences to Re-create Pre-Flood Geography
_a. at https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/c ... roceedings
_b. It shows that the supercontinent may have been partly under water, making a few large island continents above water.

_6. MF says, however, that the oceans gained water from a vapor canopy around the Earth during the Flood.
_a. So the supercontinent may not have been submerged, if there was less water in the oceans initially.
_b. (Cardona had a similar idea that the oceans gained water from the polar column when it collapsed.)
_c. That paper at #5 also shows the sedimentary rock megasequences, which under the Gulf of Mexico, include the Zuni and Tejas.
_d. MF says the Zuni first formed during the Great Flood.
_e. So the Zuni in the Gulf of Mexico formed by erosion and coastal slumping during the asteroid impact event.
_f. I think MF says the Flood deposits had not lithified yet, despite the Flood having occurred several centuries earlier.
_g. The Tejas was newly deposited by Floods during the impact event.

_7. See Subduction Zones at http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/thu ... _depth.jpg
and https://www.usgs.gov/media/galleries/subducting-slabs
_a. So far I don't know if MF has an idea how the so-called subduction zones formed.
_b. Some of them go down c. 100 to 300 km and some go down to 500 km or more.
_c. They obviously must have formed during the asteroid impact event, if Shock Dynamics is correct.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:46 am

I finally got some time to answer this (I am currently on holiday and it is difficult to arrange proper replies using a device which is not my laptop).
Lloyd wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:18 pm JP, can you provide experimentally verified evidence that atmospheric and/or geological electrical forces alone can deposit megasequences of sediments that later lithify?
Strawman. I no-where denied that most (not necessarily all) global sedimentary layers were deposited by a global flood event or events. You invented that claim yourself. What I deny is that such a global flood event in its abative/recessive phase can result in the specific fractal geometries of mountain and valley formations worldwide. Whether such fractal patterning of mountains and valleys occured during or after the global flood even remains to be examined more closely.

For specific examples of such fractal formations, see:

Moutains and Valleys
McDonnell Ranges, Northern Territory, AU
British Colombia, Canada
Franklin State Forest, Tennessee/Alabama Border, USA.
Bungle Bungle, Western Australia.
Scambridge Gulf, Western Australia
Cape York, Queensland, Australia.
Rockies, Colorado, USA
Northern Blue Mountains, New South Wales, Australia.
Arunachal Pradesh, India/China.
Himalayas, Nepal.
Jammu and Kashmir, India/Pakistan/China.
Altai Tavan Bogt, Russia/Mongolia
Putoranskiy, Siberia
Afghanistan
The Alps, Europe
Pyrenees, Spain/France/Andorra
Yemen
Negev, Israel.
Angola
Namibia
Andes, Peru
Andes, Chile (North)
Andes, Chile (South)
Antartica
South Island, New Zealand
South Korea
Fjordlands, Norway.
Northern Iceland
Northern Greenland
Alaska
Yukon, Canada
etc...

River Catchments
Murray-Darling River Catchment, Australia
Mississippi River Catchment, USA
Blue Nile Catchment, Ethiopia
Amazon River Catchment, Brazil
etc...
Lloyd wrote:Guy Berthault has provided such evidence for forces involved in normal Flooding.
Berthault's experiments prove lamination, but not abative fractal formation. I am of the mind that Berhault's experiments in stratigraphy should be repeated with some extra controls. Firstly, adding an abative phase after the stratification by engineering a flume tank with sides that can be dropped in an attempt to simulate abative planation. The purpose is to examine the patterning of the runoff channels and whether or not they will form the specific fractal geometries of mountain/valley ranges worldwide. Second, repeating both sedimentation and abative planation in a highly electrified saline environment.
Lloyd wrote:Walter Brown has provided explanations for how electrical forces likely accompanied the Great Flood and later Floods, which produced Earth's radioactive elements. Charles Chandler has shown that stars and planets form electrically and that impacts, as well as earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes etc are also largely electrical phenomena. So I can believe that powerful electrical forces were involved in the shaping of mountain ranges etc in relatively minor ways.
Refer to the linked formations above and please tell me how those formations, found globally, exhibit a 'minor' role for electrical processes in mountain/valley formation?
Lloyd wrote:But the formation of mountain ranges likely resulted primarily from the Shock Dynamics asteroid impact that broke up Pangaea. Much of the energy of the huge impact, that formed a 500 mile diameter crater north of Madagascar, went into breaking up the supercontinent and in moving the resulting continents rapidly apart and in folding the sediments by horizontal compression into mountain ranges along the near and far edges of the continents that moved significantly. Electrical forces were likely present along surfaces, as well as in fractures and lineaments, but the momentum of the large impact is what provided most of the energy of mountain formation etc.
Rubbish. Complete and utter garbage. Show me one impact experiment anywhere by anybody using any medium which results in the specific lichtenberg fractals exhibited by every single plate boundary mountain range in the world (for examples, see Himalayas, New Zealand, Andes, Korea, and then do your own searching in Japan, Kamchatkya, etc). Show me one abative/recessive hydrology experiment which does not use electrified salt water which results in the specific fractal formations of mountains/valleys worldwide. This was my challenge which you've expertly dodged.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:20 am

Also, can you please provide any plate tectonics experiments (pushing soft, layered materials into one another so that one subducts the other: and I allow soft because creationism posits soft sedimentary layers post-flood which could be deformed, bent, etc) where the result exhibit fractal Lichtenberg figures in the experimental terrain.

Good luck! It will never work, because many mountains and valleys were never formed by the simplistic collision of two tectonic plates (volcanism is another matter). Other forces are at work, and they all involve electricity as the clear Lichtenberg formations at plate tectonic boudaries worldwide testify. Even the San Andreas Fault, arguably one of the 'best' evidences of plate tectonics, exhibits copious fractal patterns along its ridge lines, indicating it is probably an electric discharge channel originating from beneath the crust rather than from the ocean.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jun 21, 2021 5:26 am

68587

WATER EROSION IS FRACTAL TOO

This video shows how tectonic plates can fold at their boundaries when moved horizontally against each other:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9bKXY0OMxc

The experiment didn't include water erosion, but we know that water erosion produces a fractal pattern like these:

(This image shows a satellite view of natural water erosion near where I live in flatland:) https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Alton,+ ... 494939!3e0

(This shows fractal water erosion on a steep hillside:)
https://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/638x318/pho ... 112_XS.jpg

(This shows similar erosion on a hillside that is steep toward the top and less steep below:)
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/wind-er ... 042970.jpg

(This shows erosion around a mesa:)
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8sYCZ5GOD2g/ ... sion-1.jpg

This article says natural erosion is fractal:
https://www.stormh2o.com/erosion-contro ... real-world

Almost everything is nonlinearly fractal:
https://kluge.in-chemnitz.de/documents/ ... node2.html

So electricity isn't the only thing that generates fractal patterns.

Mountain ranges folded from horizontal sedimentary layers due to horizontal compression as per the video above. After the mountain ranges formed, water erosion produced fractal patterns in them.

The Earth has charged double layers (see figure 3 at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=11093 ) which produce some electrical forces involved in earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderstorms etc. Impacts produce thermonuclear explosions which involve electrical forces. Walter Brown's site CreationScience.com I think, explains how electrical forces during Great Floods and cataclysms produced radioactive elements in Earth's crust.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Jun 23, 2021 6:06 pm

69038

WHY RETHINK CARDONA'S TIMELINE

_Cardona figured that the Saturn Configuration became visible about 10,000 years ago when Saturn flared up and the system broke up about 5,000 years ago after Saturn's last flare-up.
_His books indicate that he thought the Younger Dryas event was caused by the first flare-up.
_I think he said the Moon was captured by the Earth during the breakup of the Saturn system.
_And in a Thoth article he talked about a great Flood that came from the North.
_So he believed there was one or more great Floods, but I'm not sure what time period he assigned them to.
_He suggested that the Flood waters came from the polar column, so that was probably when the system broke up.
_However, my studies indicate that the Younger Dryas event occurred some centuries after the Great Flood.

OBJECTIVE, NON-CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCING THE AGES OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

_MAINSTREAM SHORTSIGHTEDNESS. Just as mythologists have overlooked basic facts in mythology, geologists have missed some basic facts in geology.

_I am not a Creationist. I have no bias for or against short or long time scales for geological features. I only seek facts.
_At the present erosion rate all continents would erode down to below sea level within 20 million years.
_The fact that the shapes of the continents still fit together well, after the breakup of the former supercontinent, Pangaea, shows that very little erosion has occurred since the breakup, therefore the breakup cannot have occurred more than a few millennia ago.
_Cardona indicated in an interview with me about ten years ago that he thought Saturn flare-ups caused continental drift.
_I consider an asteroid impact to be a much more probable cause, as per NewGeology.us.

NO EROSION IN CONFORMING STRATA.
_Firstly, conforming sedimentary rock strata, in which the strata are parallel to each other, must have been deposited all at about the same time, because there are no signs of erosion between the strata.
_If deposition occurred over long time spans there would surely be signs of considerable erosion between strata, i.e. cross sections of ditches, gullies, canyons, as are found in modern terrain.
_Conventional radiometric dating methods are proven to be wrong and based on naive assumptions.

SEDIMENT SORTING INTO 3 TYPES.
_Secondly, sediments were sorted.
_There are three main types of sedimentary rock, shale/mudstone, limestone and sandstone.
_If for example, there is a layer (or juxtaposed series of layers) of sandstone, then one of limestone below it, and then one of shale below the limestone, it's absurd to suppose that just one type of sediment, in this case mud forming shale, eroded from somewhere and was deposited for thousands or more years and that each later sediment type, lime forming limestone and then sand forming sandstone, did so, one at a time, for thousands of years each.
_Nowhere could there have been a highland of one pure sediment type eroded to form that sediment type in a layer on a lowland.
_Guy Berthault's experiments and others show that sediments are sorted into individual types (with each type going into different layers all at once) by flooding.
_As sediments in flood waters flow, they are sorted into individuals layers of clay/mud, silt, lime and sand (lime comes from ocean waters).

MEGASEQUENCES.
_There are remnants of 6 megasequences of rock strata worldwide.
_The strata within each megasequence are all conforming.
_The top of each megasequence is leveled flat by sheet erosion, but very little channeled erosion followed before the next megasequence was deposited.
_Therefore, very little time must have passed between each pair of megasequence depositions.
(Since Mike says the Tejas came hundreds of years after the Zuni, is there much erosion between them?)

CONCLUSION: THERE WAS A GREAT FLOOD OR FLOODS.
_The sedimentary rock strata were apparently deposited by one or more Great Floods.
_The first five megasequences must have been deposited during a Flood of the Pangaea supercontinent, which was all lowland.
_The last megasequence must have been deposited when the supercontinent broke apart, such as by an asteroid impact.
_Dinosaur fossils are found in the earlier megasequence, while large mammal fossils are found in the last one.

HORIZONTAL STRATA.
_The sedimentary strata must have been initially horizontal on lowland Pangaea after the Great Flood.
Horizontal Strata (river-cut) by Alton, IL
- https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8925473 ... 384!8i8192
- https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8937115 ... 384!8i8192

STRATA DEFORMATION.
_Then horizontal compression due to an asteroid impact would have broken up Pangaea and formed mountain ranges, folding and deforming strata in some areas.
_Following are some of the kinds of deformation.

Thrusts
http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/pre ... hrust8.gif
http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/pre ... Sld10.html

Folds
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_b ... /fig13.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_b ... /sec16.htm

Eroded Folds
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ka ... eladar.png
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig ... _271843808

Eroded Anticline/Fold
http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/geoeduc/F ... s/GI03.jpg
http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/geoeduc/geoeduc.htm

Since the Younger Dryas sediments are at the top of the geologic column, the Great Flood that deposited most of the megasequences must have occurred before the Younger Dryas event.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:51 am

69906

TIME OF SATURN'S DEPARTURE
(The following is from Thoth online magazine of January 2000 at https://www.saturniancosmology.org/file ... otiv02.txt
I can't tell from this yet when the texts were said to have been written, which would provide a maximum late date for the event. Ev may know, but he doesn't say much.)

THE ONSLAUGHT OF ICE
_... the Chief of the Sky Spirits drilled a hole in the sky with a rotating stone through which he pushed snow and ice to form a mound which almost touched the sky... . the drilling of the sky with a rotating stone is too similar to the churning of the ocean by Mount Madara to escape our notice. Destruction of the world by cold is also met with among the marginal, forest, and southern Andean peoples. As Dolph Hooker informs us: "... we cannot find evidence that Earth's climate grew cold before the advent of an ice age; ... on the contrary, climate grew colder only after the ice arrived and only to the extent that the ice itself refrigerated the Earth..." ... As Hooker also tells us: "Obviously the perma-frost accumulated from the bottom upward--not by freezing from the top downward.' What this means is that the detritus which forms the permafrost was frozen as it was being laid down. Am I here advocating that the ice which caused the so-called Ice Age came from the planet Saturn? Not really. What I am claiming is that the snow, ice, and sleet came from the axial vortex when it was severed for the last time because that is where a vast quantity of terrestrial moisture had been stored. But why, and how, then did it freeze to fall as snow, and ice, and sleet? As mentioned earlier, this all transpired during the break-up of the Saturnian configuration. Saturn, Venus, and Mars were thrown out of axial alignment. And so was Earth. Its axis shifted to take up the alignment it now possesses. Do we find this also contained in the mytho-historical record? Is this demand also met?

EARTH'S SHIFTING AXIS
_... The Muria, a tribe of the Bastar State in the Central Provinces of India ... tell without ambiguity how Mahapurub turned the world topsy-turvy... . [the record] of the Hopi ... is one of the best to illustrate the subject under discussion. As these Indians narrate: '... the world, with no one to control it, teetered off balance, spun around crazily, then rolled over twice. Mountains plunged into seas with a great splash, seas and lakes sloshed over the land; and as the world spun through cold and lifeless space it froze into solid ice..' How would these Indians have known that the teetering of the world would cause seas and lakes to slosh over the land? How would they have known that a shifting of earth's axis could freeze it into solid ice? Actually, had I any faith in the accuracy of counting the annual layers of ice retrieved in cores drilled out of Greenland's ice fields, I would even be able to date the event for you.

SATURN'S DEPARTURE
_... I do not need to tell that Saturn is no longer in Earth's proximity. The theory then demands that somewhere in the record Saturn's removal from Earth's proximity should be encountered. And so we find as, for example, with the tale of Quetzelcoatl, whose 'paladins' died from the cold through the snow that fell upon them just before the god took off on his serpent raft to be seen no more. I mention this one myth because, as one can see, it ties in nicely with Saturn's removal at the very time when Earth, teetering off balance, was deluged with the onslaught of ice that ushered in the so-called Ice Age.
_... having said so much about the Egyptian Ra toward the beginning of this treatise, it should perhaps be fitting for me to end with him. Thus, in an Egyptian myth, Ra is made to say: 'Weary indeed are my limbs and they fail me. I shall go forth... Henceforth my dwelling place must be in the heavens. No longer will I reign upon the earth.' And: 'I have determined to cause myself to be uplifted into the sky, to join the blessed gods and to renounce rule of the world' ... Then Ra raised himself from the back of the goddess Nut into the sky.
_So here I must ask: if Ra was truly the Sun, where had it been prior to its ascent into the sky? And if, as mythologists tell us, Nut was the goddess of the sky, what would it mean that the Sun rose from the back of the sky (i.e. Nut) into the sky? What does it mean that, before ascending into the sky, the Sun had reigned upon Earth? What does it mean that the Sun once ruled the world? Do we not, in fact, find it stated in an Orphic fragment that 'Saturn dwelt openly on earth among men'? So, also, Dionysus of Halicarnassus who declared that 'Kronos ruled on this very earth.' Besides, as it was written, when Ra removed himself into the sky, 'darkness came on' and 'Ra was borne through darkness.' Does this make sense if Ra was the Sun? Do we see darkness coming on when the Sun rises into the sky?
_The answer to this mystery is that the sun of night, which had ruled Earth due to its proximity, had now removed itself into the blackness of space. True night, as we now know it, finally descended upon the world. And the stars, which could not have been seen as long as the Saturnian sun of night was shining down on Earth, appeared in all their brilliance for the first time. Do we find this stated in the mytho-historical record? Can this last demand be met? As it is written: '[When Ra left Earth he] went on his way through the realms which are above, and these he divided and set in order. He spake creating words, and called into existence the field of Aalu, and there he caused to assemble a multitude of beings which are beheld in heaven, even the stars...'
_Dwardu Cardona

[References are from http://rogerswebsite.com/ah/TheDemandso ... Theory.pdf ]
204. For Quetzalcoatl as Saturn see, D. Cardona, 'Morning Star', AEON IV:1, April 1995, pp. 11-21 where various sources are cited.
205. de Santillana & von Dechend, op. cit. [2], pp. 78, 360.
206. Van Over, op. cit. [5], pp. 262-263.
207. Ibid., p. 270.
208. E.A.W. Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians. Vol. 1, N.Y., 1904/1969, p. 367.
209. O. Kern (ed.), Orphicorum Fragmenta, Berlin, 1963, p. 186.
210. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities I:36:1.
211. D.A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend, N.Y., 1907/1978, p. 10.
212. Ibid

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests