|
|
|
Creationist Models: The Flood
Creation/Curse/Catastrophe
(CCC) model
The CCC model (Gentet, 2000a; 2000b) declares that most of the
‘geologic record’ resulted by a number of extra-Flood disasters
associated closely with God’s curse of Genesis 3. The CCC model accepts
the Geologic Column as a framework reference for description of the
‘rock record,’ though it appears on a more detailed surveillance of the
model that it overturns the vital time-stratigraphic layout of the
column in favor towards a paleoenviromental interpretation. The
Phanerozoic eras are reinterpreted to indicate preserved distinct
ecosystems that resulted due to the creation work on the 3rd, 5th, and
6th days.
Evaluation
The CCC model, while based on an insistance of an explicit Biblical
foundation, in the words of Reed and Froede, it “employs improper
exegesis and goes well beyond the bounds of Biblical text” (Reed and
Froede, 2003).
The more scientific problem is that it accepts the geologic column,
though in interpreted form. As many creationists have demonstrated
(Reed and Froede 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003; Brown 1980, 2001; Woodmorappe
1981a, 1999b; etc) any proper creationist model must reject the
geologic column as anything more than “a hypothetical classification
scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to
classify rocks around the world” (Woodmorappe 1999).
This author agrees with the conclusions of Reed and Froede, Brown, and
Woodmorappe in their papers. This coupled with the exegesisical
problems (such as there being no indication of large catastrophism, or
any catastrophe, of a magnatude large enough to effect such geological
formation mentioned in the Bible besides Noah’s flood) indicates that
it must stretch the text in order to encorporate the model. The model
has also been highly questioned by others (Akridge 2000a; Klevberg
2000b). The questions raised have not been answered yet (Reed and
Froede 2003). These combined make the model highly doubtful and has
been rejected by this author.
Catastrophic Plate Techtonic
(CPT) Model
The CPT model is the creationist attempt to “fix” the plate techtonic
theory. The plate techtonic theory states that the earth’s crust, or
lithosphere, is broken up into eight large pieces and a number of
smaller ones. Through the subduction process, the lithosphere is cycled
through convection cells beneath the earth’s crust. New lithospheric
material is lifted upwards, giving birth to the oceanic ridges, which
move apart and are eventually subducted under the continents in some
cases, or down oceanic trenches in other cases (this is called the
seaflood spreading hypothesis). Supporters of this theory state that it
explains continental drift from a theoretical super continent known as
Pangea (Hewitt 2004).
The CPT model attempts to ‘hitch a ride’ on the geophysical bandwagon,
so to speak, and explain continental drift through an accelerated plate
tectonics model that happened in nearly all of its entirety during the
events of Noah’s flood. The CPT model grew out of discussions about the
role of plate tectonic theory in creation science (Austin et all 1994).
Baumgardner’s computer modelling studied provided CPT’s central concept
of accelerated subduction and runaway plate motion (Baumgardner 1986,
1990, 1994a, 1994b). Those involved in the project thought that a
simple time compression was enough to allow “CPT to piggyback onto the
evidence for its uniformatarian parent” (Snelling 1995). CPT also
relies upon the geologic column to “validate interpretations that are in turn
presented as data” [emphesis theirs] (Reed and Froede 2003).
Baumgardener (2002) has applied “relative dating comparisons based on
microfossil assemblages. But these assemblages are assigned their
relative ages based on their evolutionary succession!”(Reed and Froede
2003)
Evaluation
It is not the intention of this author to criticize or aggrivate his
fellow creationists, nor to create division. Actually, the fact that
the creation scientists are not all in agreement is a natural and
healthy thing in scientific investigation. Nor do they pretend to have
everything right. Neither is it the implication of this paper to make
light of the research or investigation of any of the varied theories or
their supporters or that they have been wasting their lives in
fruitless endeavor.
That said, it must be emphesied that the CPT model has the largest
amount of problems of any of the varied models currently in
circulation, stemming from the fact that Plate Tectonics is, from a
physical standpoint, literally impossible and is a theory that cannot
answer all the questions (Reed, Froede, Woodmorappe, Oard, 2001). It
has been mathematically demonstrated that subduction is impossible with
either a pushing or pulling force (Brown, 1980), thus resulting in the
death of the main mechanism for plate tectonics.
Prophetically, Henry Morris warned against plate tectonics as long ago
as 1984 when he stated that “One
should remember that no one has actually observed the sea floor
spreading or the continents drifting.... The tectonics of the great
crustal rock plates have been infered, not measured” (Morris,
1984).
It is the contention of this author, in the face of much research that
plate tectonics, gradual or catastrophic, is simply an erroneous
position in face of the challenges it faces from creationists and
evolutionists alike.
The Hydroplate (HP) Model
The hydroplate model states that the pre-flood earth had a solid crust
surrounding it. There were no breaches in this crust and it was roughly
ten miles in thickness. Below this ten-mile crust was a half-mile layer
of water seperating the crust from the basaltic layer that now makes up
the ocean floor. This water was contained in interconnected chambers,
not merely a layer that the crust was floating on. Increased pressure
in these subterranean chambers increased due to the weight of the ten
miles of rock pressing down upon it. This caused a microscopic crack to
begin at the weakest point of the crust, splitting across the crust in
both directions, following the path of least resistance. This crack
raced around the globe in two hours.
The pressure now caused the water to explode upwards through the crack
with an energy release greater than 10 billion hydrogen bombs, blasting
the crack wider, the force of the rupture sending water more than
twenty miles into the atmosphere, sending rocks and debris into space
to later become comets and meteoroids and asteroids that we see today.
The water eroded the sides of the crustal plates wider. Eventually
these became so wide that a decrease in pressure caused the basaltic
layer below to bulge upwards, birthing the mid-oceanic ridge. This
basaltic material had to come from somewhere as it bulged upwards, and
this caused sections of the basaltic layer to be “sucked” inwards,
birthing the oceanic trenches.
As the basaltic layer bulged upwards, the crustal plates, still with
water beneath them, slid downhill away from the mid-oceanic ridges.
They then ran into resistance and compressed thickly, some places
buckling upwards, some downwards, causing the waters of the flood to
run off, just as the Bible states, into the low places as the mountains
rose up and the valleys sank down (Brown 2001).
Evaluation
This author has been unable to locate any legitimate critical analysis
of the Hydroplate model, though AiG has stated that they have requested
that Brown present his findings to them. Given the fact that the
entirety of Brown’s book is available for free online, this author can
only determine that AiG is being stubbornly pussillanimous over the
issue.
Glenn Morton, long known for unashamedly misrepresenting creationists,
and John Woodmorappe in particular (Woodmorappe 1999; 2003) has
apparently attempted to respond on the talk.origins newgroup, though in
reading his evaluation it is blatantly apparent that he hardly (if at
all) consulted Brown’s actual work and relied on a description of it
which may or may not be accurate as most of the assumptions of his
mathematics were addressed in the above referenced work. Mark Isaak
also addressed it briefly in his ‘Index to Creationist Claims’ section,
though his infantile objections are if possible worse than Morton’s,
misrepresenting (purposely or otherwise) of Brown’s entire position and
apparently missed or chose to ignore the simple fact that Brown has
addressed all of these “problems” in his book (see Talking Back: The
Hydroplate Model for analysis of TO's claims). One is forced to
conclude that Isaak has 1) no clue about properly representing the
research of others (which does not speak well for his academic
abilities) or 2) is purposefully attempting to confuse the hapless
reader as to what a legitimate scientific theory is. It would honestly
be the preference of this author that it be the former.
This nonewithstanding, the Hydroplate Model perfectly explains physical
phenomena, successfully demonstrating the impossibility of the PT
theory with a far simpler mechanism. Just as the eliptical orbits of
the geocentric model needed constant change and complex physics, the
simpler solution of the helocentric model, which explains all the same
data in a much easier mannor, so too does the Hydroplate Model explain
the physical evidence far better than the PT model
It is not the purpose nor thesis of this paper to critically address
the Hydroplate model, nor any other flood model, merely to establish
that model which is in the eyes of the author the strongest and best
fits the physical evidence. Neither is it the intention of this paper
to address a comprehensive list of all various flood models, merely the
most commonly acknowledged ones. Since it has now done that, we can
move on to the actual purpose of the paper; namely addressing specific
criticisms of the flood of Noah’s day by sceptics and so on, keeping in
mind the different natures of scientific and historical evidence, as
this author has done (Ross 2004).
Previous Page - Next Page
|
