What I Saw in New Zealand
by Chris Barrett
Christine, (my wife) and I have just returned from a 9-day trip to the North Island of New Zealand. We both love nature, and while there did our best to see as much of the area as possible.
We spent a week based in the beautiful, tourist-popular, coastal town of Piahia at the Bay of Isles.
Portland Sandstone
On the way to Piahia we passed by Portland, a locality just south of the coastal city of Whangarei. Outside Portland is a large quarry. Its walls are a cement grey limestone. It is quarried for making cement, but also blocks and rocks for other uses are produced. The limestone is around 100 m thick, with all but the upper 13 m being consistently high grade limestone. All formed from ancient sea floors.
The quarry is quite deep, cutting down into the side of a hill, but even at its lowest point is 63 meters above sea level. There is also coal underneath some of these areas of limestone to the north and west of Whangarei. A mine just 1.5 kilometers (km) north of the quarry had produced in excess of 4 million tons of coal from beneath this limestone level when it finally closed in 1971.
Heading northwards, we found ourselves driving over a landscape built around and over volcanic rock. We passed hills formed by volcano peaks, long since worn down. Much of the flow from volcanoes was spewed on top of the limestone level, which in places was heavily eroded before being overlain with the volcanic flows, which are in turn heavily eroded. If you want a glimpse of how erosion has effected volcanic basalts just Google “wairere boulders northland” and search images.
Kawiti Glow Worms
Some 50 km of winding road later, we passed a sign to the Kawiti glow worm cave. The turn off was about 5 km south of Kawakawa, and only half an hour’s drive from our destination.
We returned to the Glow Worm Cave the next day. The cave is about 200 meters long and runs underneath a layer of limestone. Basically the creek takes a shortcut from one side of a limestone ridge to the other. This is the same layer of limestone as at Portland, 50 km to the south. Again, it is formed from uplifted sea floor. It is not continuous because of either erosion or burial by volcanic activity.
The valleys that form the ridge are caused by erosion. Massive boulders hang from the edge of the creek where the cave exits the ridge; signs that the creek exit was once hundreds of meters farther out, the ridge much wider, and the cave much longer.
Our Maori guide gave us a fascinating commentary as we followed his glow worm-like lamp along the walkway. The worms only inhabit the upper regions of the cave where climbing crickets and floods cannot reach them. They looked like a milky way snaking their way along the pitch of the cave roof. The glow of the worms is effective in attracting flying insects to their doom.
Apparently a 26-year-old Charles Darwin went through the cave on Boxing Day, 1835, when he spent 9 days at the Bay of Isles, Piahia region. Here is a link which provides a fascinating insight into this event: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10620386
After exiting the far end of the cave we climbed back over the ridge to the entry via an amazing path winding through massive, eroded chunks of limestone. Some boulders were up to 10 meters high, and carved into all kinds of fascinating shapes by the elements. It was this limestone erosion that was leaching down into the cave below and forming massive stalactites. Some are meters in diameter.
Kauri Trees
Much of the North Island was home to the massive, long-lived Kauri trees. Sadly, 90% of New Zealand's forests were destroyed by logging, farming and fire. In the 10% that remains there are just a few dozens of the larger kauri's with a diameter over 2 meters left.
We visited the largest few. Te Matua Ngahere, (Father of the Forest) has a diameter over 5 meters, and Tane Mahuta (Lord of the Forest), is 50 meters high with a slightly smaller diameter than Te Matua. Both trees are estimated to be almost 2000 years old. Later, in the Museum at Te Papa, we saw age rings on slightly smaller trees and the rings are clearly discernible in the kauri timber. In the museum we also saw illustrations of the tree trunk sizes of massive Kauris seen and recorded in the forests before logging and fires destroyed them. The largest was the famed The Forest Ghost, which was reportedly measured at 8.54 meters diameter. Tragically The Ghost was consumed by fire in 1890.
Lost Forests of the Past
These Kauri trees are impressive, and standing at the base of a 2000-year-old tree is both humbling and sobering, but it does not stop there. Traveling further northwards, we stopped at the Gum Diggers Park. This is 130 km northwards as the crow flies. Over 100 years ago Kauri gum was a valuable commodity, its resin being used in paints and other products. The gum forms on limbs and injuries on the Kauri. It then either falls to the ground and is buried on the forest floor, or is buried when the tree falls. This gum is typical of many conifers, but is of a superior quality on the kauri. Over 10,000 tons of gum was exported from New Zealand, and the country earned more money from gum than gold, another of its early resources. The kauri gum has the same appearance and qualities as amber. Some has aged significantly and is of amber quality, some is less aged, and is still called “gum” even though it is very hard.
Early pioneers, assisted by the Maori people, discovered that the swamps in the northland of the North Island were host to large amounts of gum from buried kauri forests. Thousands of buried kauri trees lie under farmland and swamps in the region. For reasons unknown, every buried tree found is lying east to west. Some suggest a tsunami.
These trees have been buried quickly and are preserved in peat bogs and swamps at depths of over 2 meters. The Gum Diggers Park has exposed one of these massive logs for tourists to see. Excavated down to about 3 meters with a stairway and decking beside it in the pit, lies a massive kauri log. The log is from a tree of a size indicative to be over 1000 years old. Information on the site suggests the tree was buried over 40,000 years ago.
Standing in the pit, looking back up at the wall extending to the swamp floor, is a journey in time. The swamp floor is not the highest level the land had reached. Protruding down from the current surface are the lower sections of taproots from a massive kauri tree. If you can imagine cutting beneath the roots of a tree about a meter below the base and leaving the roots below that point intact, you may begin to picture the scene. Effectively, high up above the current swamp floor there was a giant kauri tree, now long gone, and the floor has since eroded away to its current level, leaving just the lower section of its massive root system.
The wall of the pit extends down almost 2 meters to the top of the log, and shows a myriad of layers of time. Forest layers, seasons, fires, decomposed trees, and measures of life are compressed down into dense layers of peat, clay and gum: Then there is the log itself, buried in almost 2 meters of more rapidly deposited material. But, that is not the end. We did not see it, but apparently beneath this massive log lies yet another level of forests, occupied by even older logs, buried in an earlier mass destruction of kauri trees. Data on site suggests this older forest reaches ages of 100,000 years and was also destroyed by a large event.
The land at Gum Diggers Park is only meters above sea level, but is apparently geologically similar to the limestone seen elsewhere.
After Gum Diggers Park we went to the very top of the North Island and stood at the tip overlooking the convergence of the Pacific and Tasman seas. Their currents seemed to clash in a long line of eddies and sandy turbulence, perhaps reminiscent of the forces that have shaped the land of the long white cloud.
This is a selective overview of a fantastic time in NZ, and there is much more I could tell. If you read my wife's diary of the holiday, you would get an entirely different picture. For me, the very breeze blowing through the canopy of towering forest trees spoke of an ancient past, and the musty, earthiness of peat bog logs smelled of deep time.
Of course, I did not get to see the extinct Moa. Nor did we get a chance to see the critically endangered Kakopo, the world’s largest, but flightless, parrot. I did see a stuffed Kiwi in the museum; better luck next time. I cannot see any of these in Australia.
I share these snapshots because they are relevant to the age of this earth and living things upon it. I have drawn no conclusions. Observant readers will quickly see there are significant pointers to geological layers, ages and sequences which may raise challenging questions in light of traditional creation and flood stories.
Below is a map of the geology of the area with locations mentioned above identified, also a legend to match. Source: https://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/research/general_geology/maps/nzgeolkey.html
 |
 |
Chris. Thank you for sharing your tour of N.Z. It was very interesting as we treked up & down, although
tiring for this octogenerarian. Felt as though i could actually see what you saw. A couple of questions,
It appears that N.Z. may be a volcanic uplift of a much younger age than the continents. If so,does this
indicate to you there may not be oil there? It's my understanding that oil is the result of dead sea life & of large land creatures(dinosaurs) of 150-200 million years ago. You didn't mention oil.
The massive trees buried not to deep and still intact, all falling in the same direction seems very odd.
You mentioned perhaps by tsunamis. Is it possible they may have been felled by a near earth asteroid explosion or perhaps a global flood, as the sea & land changed elevation). Thanks again, Chris
Earl,
Appreciate your note & question. The general consensus is that NZ is part of a large land mass that broke off Australia many moons ago. There is a rift between Australia and NZ. The land mass that broke away in size is a bit under half that of Australia, but it lies mostly submerged. NZ, Lord Howe Island etc are bits that rise above sea level today. Subduction between two plates is still happening under NZ, (at about 40 mm per year) hence the earthquakes etc.
There is two areas of oil and gas exploration in NZ area. West of the southern/central North Island, and East of the South Island. Some of the rock petrology shows similarities to that in Australia. Particularly the east coast, as does the coal. The sandstone also is remniscent of the East Coast of Australia.
The volacanic activity in NZ has varying ages, but some extending to much younger, hence it overlays the sandstone, which overlays the coal etc.
It may well have been an asteroid explosion. No one really knows. It is relatively easy to imagine it may have been an event like Tunguska, but, to date everybody is guessing. The fascinating thing in this case is that there are apparently two events, separated by long periods of time.
Cheers
These things have no relevance to the age of the earth. As usual, it's all based on unproven, and unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations. The evolutionary theory, with its baggage of impossible scenarios and vast ages, is crumbling, even while its defenders are becoming more insistent as to its validity. Repeat a lie often enough . . . . .
"….Repeat a lie often enough .."
Jean, thank you for reminding me why young earth creationism lingers on…:)
Is it possible to be logically a theistic evolutionist? Is this not one of the biggest oxymoron of our time Is the ressurection more believable than than a six day creation? How about all the other miracles, are they more believable than a six day creation.
Very good points, Tapiwa, but they fall on deaf ears. It is oxymoronic, and, contrary to Elaine's assertions, it is not at all logical. She wants us to accept the alleged "Big Bang" without explanations, but she wil not accept that the earth was created in 6 days only a few thousand years ago, without lots of explanations, all of which she rejects, as do so many here at AT. Welcome to the weird wacky "twilight zone" world of the Genesis denyers (sort of like Holocaust denyers).
I really wish that I had time to post more, but that is life.
Jesus miracles are better documented, in my opinion, than other recorded Biblical miraculous events. Most of Jesus miracles were recorded, I believe, by eye witnesses. SOME of Jesus' miracles can now be duplicated by medical science. In Jesus case, He knew what needed to be done, and had the power to take that action, and did.
Any rational position has to explain the data. Big Bang is still a work in progress, but it does explain much of the data by applying well established (by experiment) God's laws for running the universe which are also know as the laws of physics.
Short creation is based entirely upon Genesis 1 and is apparently supported by Ellen White. I suggest that Genesis 1 was inspired, but the interpretation of the chapter is not. Take a more careful look at your evidence. Is there an experiment that you can perform to verify the correctness of your interpretation? Or is your interpretation just a guess?
If by "theistic evolutionist" you mean someone who believes God created the earth but left evolution to take over, then yes, it is very logical. It's no different that accepting the Big Bang: it doesn't need exact explanations, nor does the statement "God created the earth" need further explanation. Those who wish to explain it in most unscientific ways, depending on supernatural events have many more difficulties than a theistic evolutionist.
Jean, I was just reflecting on your point above, where you state: "These things have no relevance to the age of the earth. As usual, it's all based on unproven, and unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations."
I actually deliberately drew no conclusions or extrapolations about what I had seen. What "unproven", "unwarranted assumptions", and "extrapolations" did I make? To what are you reffering?
Perhaps you would actually like to analyse what I saw and described and how it fits into your view on the age of the earth, the flood etc. You also might like to explain why they do not have relevance to the age of the earth.
To give you a pointer or two: you may like to explain how two successive forrests of thousand year old trees, can be buried one on the other, with remains of more recent forests eroded back down, and subsequently re-forested. And all of that on a sandstone layer formed from seafloor, (but now is 60 meters above sea level in places) which overlays coal – coal which is formed by land based debris, which is overlain by volcanism, which has eroded down to landforms the are now the home of 2000 year old trees. Yes, you can make the extrapolations! I did not.
With all those old 'quickly' buried trees and layered rock that has been found or excavated, I would have hoped that cb25 would have taken a picture or two of at least 'one' transitional fossil that he may have come across on his trip. After all there must have been some ex-living things evolving back then. Ah, the wonder of nature! Perhaps those supplying the information found at the geological site which interprets the age of the burial of those trees as '40,000' years old may have their own preconceived assumptions when starting out with studying these geological findings. It is quite understandable that those with certain preconceived assumptions will look at an occurrence of nature and then when studying the facts they will conclude differently. This seems to be the monkey on the back of many geologists too. If at least one transitional fossil were ever to be found then at least they can be taken seriously with regards to the dating methods they use which in most cases starts out with those monkey on the back assumptions. I'll keep an eye out on my side for one of these elusive critters and will let you know if I find one – but so far no luck.
22oct..
Let's put aside for now the photo you seek, and the assumptions of the guys who dated the trees at 40kyrs.
Let's you and I pretend they are dimwits. Now you tell me how you would explain the few things I suggested to Jean in those pointers. Those things are raw data, unaltered by man, they cannot lie. It just rests with you or I to understand what sequences, times, and events they may point to. I don't know who you are, but you write with enough clarity to suggest their signficance is not lost on you. Whether you have the integrity to grapple with them is up to you, but I think the photo of a tansitional critter is perhaps the easier option; dare I say cop out?
Speaking of fossils, there are definitely a few of us still living. Seriously,i have a question that may seem
foolish to some, but i have never heard of it being raised i.e., 1. If evolution of animal life evolves by natural selection, from lesser forms to more durable specimens added features & with larger brain abilities (Human); horses from Eohippus to Arabian, ect., Why do we still have apes from which supposedly Humans evolved?? 2. When did the Dinosaurs live on earth?? i haven't read of them being observed by the earliest Bible writers. How could they not have been observed?? Supposedly they were annihilated by a global atmospherical disaster.Wouldn't that have also destroyed all mankind?? Did the Dinosaurs predate mankind?? Perplexing to me. Any suggestions?
Why would it be impossible for dinosaurs to predate man?
May I respectfully suggest to Mr. Calahan he perhaps has misunderstood the information he has read in popular sources of information about evolutionary biology. Or perhaps he has been reading the literature of the young earth/young life creationists many, and perhaps even most of whom also either misunderstand or misrepresent the almost universal understanding of contempoary biologists, anthropologists, and human paleonotologists.
First all all, it is a misunderstanding that modern humans evolved from modern apes. That clearly is impossible. The fossil evidence suggests that modern humans and modern apes have a common biological ancestor perhaps as long ago as 30 million years although the dating of the fossils evidence containue to be periodically refined with new finds. However, the most serious problem is in the suggestion that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Dinosaurs predated mankind by hundreds of millions of years.
No Bible writer would be expected to know that the earth was not flat or that it goes around the sun. Likewise, no Bible writer could have known anything about dinosaurs and human fossils. So let's avoid making these writers say things that would have never entered into their minds.
Elaine & Ervin. You both misunderstood my quest. i was hoping it would stir a yec to answer. From
all my submissions/blogs, i've aluded to personal oec. oops.
I thank Mr. Calahan for his clarification. We share an interest in how a YEC individual might respond, but we might have a long wait.
There are two seperate questions here which Adventism must face, not one, which our short term creationists continue to confound. One question which Chris's observations are very appropos to is the question of the age of life on earth. Has created life been here for 6,000 or 9,000 years or much longer? Creationists may accept an ancient chronology without accepting the second and seperate question, could life have developed in all its diversity by naturalistic, evolutionary processes? These questions must be uncoupled. Creationists may honestly and with much scientific support challenge the theory of a naturalistic creation and development of life by unguided evolution, while agreeing that the evidence for created life being here for thousands or millions or years is very strong. The observant creationist finds the revelation of nature reveal an old earth, full of created and designed wonders. Thank you again Chris for continuing to remind us of this. My Bible has no dates preventing me from believing that created life is old.
What about Greenland's ice cores which have been dated to 135,000 years ago?
Jack, gotta love you with all my liver:) Yes, what I saw in NZ only goes to the first question, and it is one where you and I find common ground, and that is a good thing! Cheers
CB25
My question for you which you have not yet answered is how is your belief in the ressurection of Christ not preferential? Does Science offer any proof that people who are dead can rise. Or how about the fact that science tells us about gravity so my question is did Jesus ascend to the heavens? Did Jesus actually turn water into wine? Science has a lot to tell us about chemical reactions and they are yet to show us how water instanteneously turns to water.
Were Adam and Eve real people? Were they the first people? Or they evolved from lesser life forms. Do you believe in a literal devil? Did the sanke actually talk to Eve? Or it is also allegorical?
I am still convinced that theistic evolution is antithetical to christianity itself and that it is a self contradictory concept and an irrational one. I actually agree with Cliff that logically you can be an adventist or an evolutionist but not both!
Tapiwa, I'll make comment on your questions later. I want to hear from Jean and Oct22 before I do. Perhaps you also could make comment on the questions I put to them higher up. You speak 3 languages, and give the impression you are no academic slouch, so please show me you are here for genuine dialogue by grappling with questions/pointers I put to Jean. At this point your questions are so off topic and pointed, they seem diversionary and loaded.
RE: …which our short term creationists continue to confound. [Jack Hoehn]
Due to Jack Hoehn being very territorial on his blogs I have so far refrained from saying anything there regarding his take on Theistic Evolution in which he tries to play it safe. Here he claims "My Bible has no dates preventing me from believing that created life is old." He has a right to this reasoning and I respect that; but smokers could claim license to smoke based on similar reasoning. He is not saying only that the Earth itself is old but that created life is too. He believes that God created evolution. This is contrary to what the Bible teaches yet he wants the Church to buy in to this as a viable alternative to our traditionally held belief concerning Creation. This belief could very well possibly include saying that God could have only had the creative ability to create the 'primordial soup' (with DNA and all?) evolving into what we see today. This not only is unbiblical (and I'll tell you why shortly) but it also actually degrades God's Creative Power as revealed in the Holy Bible and observed in the marvel of the natural world and cosmos. This to me lays claim that evolution and creation (and adaptation) are all part God's Omnipotent handiwork. He then will have to claim that there has been 'death before sin' which would include some belief that Adam and Eve shared a common ancestor with the apes that also came out of the soup. Where do morality, right and wrong, and the Fall of Mankind come in? In fact, where does God come in and how is God magnified and made to look better by accrediting Him of being just a God of the Primordial Soup. I wouldn’t go as far as calling this blasphemy but it is quite demeaning to the God of the Bible in my opinion. Worse still – this then boils down to: Why the need for would Jesus die?
Oops this should read: Why the need for Jesus to die?
This question is for another thread. We are no discussing this topic here. If you are unable to stick with the topic but interject distractions, find another thread that you can be engaged in. Red herrings are not on vegetarian's diet.
Because all men do.
22oct..
I'm not sure where you are going with your observations above, nor whether your questions were rhetorical or not.
I'm happy to dialogue with some of those points sometime, but, as with Tapiwa, I'd like you to respond to my questions above first if you are interested in serious dialogue. As with Tapiwa's points, it begins to sound diversionary and loaded.
So are you too saying there was death 'before' sin?
22oct1844, I wonder if, in your youth, while sowing you wild oats, you ever watched "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" I don't even know how to express it, but our detractors, the evolutionists here, have been "invaded." They speak a different language. We can't talk to them on the same wavelength. They mock us, find all kinds of convoluted ways of discrediting the Biblical record, and ridicule any scientific findings from creationists–because they don't believe there is any such thing as creation science. To them the term is an oxymoron. We're beating our heads against the wall. Why do we waste our time? They've rejected the SOP, so any thing she has said that sheds light on this is laughed at. And they do all of this with no concrete evidence. They've built a house of styrofoam on shifting sand. It's collapsing and they are blind to it. Damascus Road may be the only hope for them.
Mr. October continues to ask "Did death come before sin?" That has been asked and answered so many times that one might wonder what the point is of continuing to ask it again and again. The obvious answer has always been the same: that the death of animals has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. "Sin" involves a moral state only of relevance to humans having nothing to do with animals. But I suspect that Mr.October will come back with some Goldstein-like answer that just provides evidence that no amount of data or evidence will be sufficient since we are really talking about very different world-views.
Well said.
..And if Jean, Tapiwa and Mr October are still reading, let me repeat Timo's question of when you three will engage my questions in respectful dialogue?
Please note that respectful dialogue (from what I have gathered), isn't dialogue with a shotgun held you your head. Having another worldview and belief and stating one's position or arguing on behalf of such belief isn't disrespectful. I think that one shouldn't try and force dialogue their way to benefit their views only and when it doesn't then to cry foul and claim that it is not 'respectful dialogue' [when] in most cases it is.
Timo. Brilliant dialogue.
Trolls!!
22oct, Tapiwa, and jean. I recall a discussion some time back about trolls. You guys seem to me to be nothing better.
You cannot stay on topic, you cannot answer fair questions about the topic, you make accusations which are not validated by the content of the blog etc. NO, instead, you come out with loaded questions and statements harking back to some sacred doctrinal position or belief that for many readers is emotionally charged. Someone used the term "red herrings" I think.
I think you just drop in on blogs to push your own agenda, make statements of "truth" to get a point across to other readers, but completely fail, or perhaps even have no intention of, engaging in genuine discussion or dialogue.
When offered opportunity to answer fair questions about the blog you try to twist the blame on others. You are a disgrace to the ethics of fair debate.
You come across with what is arguably a pathetic attitude and example of Christian honesty and integrity. Something you guys should be the best examples of if your claims are true. I even see you are on Dr Taylor's blog challenging him about is Jesus God! Ridiculous.
Wasn't there something in the guidelines about ad hominem attacks? Trolls? Pathetic attitude? Pushing our own agendas?
My only agenda is the defense of truth. What I see here from some bloggers and most posters is the attack of SDA beliefs, which I believe to be truth. I've tried to engage in meaningful dialogue but ridicule is all I get for my efforts. You and Taylor and others seem to be determined to push the pro-evolutionary dogma. You discount any evidence that refutes evolutionary claims. All creationist organizations are made to appear as if they lack credibility. You accept the conclusions of infidel geologists and biologists for the age of these deposits; but discount the conclusions of committed Christian scientists who present plausible explanations for a much younger earth. You're welcome to your beliefs, of course, but it appears to me that AT is not here to upold or defend Adventist beliefs. It allows just about every doctrine to be attacked, and removes posting privileges from those who question it's agenda or philosophy.
You're in your own little infidel world here and over at Spectrum, but out there in the real Adventist Church, most people I know think you guys have gone over the edge. Some of our best ministers and theologians are ridiculed here because they dare to uphold traditional Adventist beliefs. The accusation of being pathetic and pushing an agenda, could equally apply to the operators of this site.
Jean,
Seriously: "You (I) accept the conclusions of infidel geologists and biologists for the age of these deposits; but discount the conclusions of committed Christian scientists who present plausible explanations for a much younger earth."
Let me get this clear. I did not say I accepted or rejected the ages or conclusions of geologists re what I SAW in NZ.
You are a committed Christian and I have asked you to give me conclusions or explanations about what I saw. You will not, have not, or cannot. I don't think I can be any fairer in what I did. I drew no conclusions; left it open to people like you, 22 and Tapiwa to give some obervations or explanations. NONE.
My "attacks" are not ad hominem. They are aimed directly at the responses you have given or failed to give in response to fair questions. Where have you engaged in meaningfull dialogue directly relevant to the blog?
Re my own little world. Well, I happen to think creationism and age of the earth is a hot topic for Adventism today. Surely, what one observes in geology and nature on a trip through someplace like NZ when it does have relevance to the age of the earth, the flood, etc IS relevant to Adventism. If what I saw has credible explantions for traditional creationism – how is that pushing an agenda? If it has no credible expanations that can justify creationism – should we not know about it and grapple with the issues?
"Data on site suggests this older forest reaches ages of 100,000 years and was also destroyed by a large event."
That is where I got the idea that you (although the "you" included Dr. Taylor, and I know he is an evolutionist) endorsed the conclusions put forward by geologists. Forgive me if I read too much into it. I may have overreacted. I get tired of the way those of us who still have faith in Scripture are mocked here on a professedly Adventist forum.
We have two choices: accept the Biblical account of origins, including the Flood, or reject it. If we reject it we have opened up a can of worms which will eventually lead to disbelief in most of the rest of the Bible. If we can't trust Genesis how can we trust Matthew? Geological deposits may appear to prove that millions of years have elapsed, but those speculations are all based un uproveable premises and assumptions. This is where we can never come to agreement. Long agers are convinced that their assumptions are valid. When YEC's point out the inconsistencies in their assumptions and conclusions, these points are either ridiculed or explained away. The Bible has proven its reliablility over the centuries, and I see no reason to question its validity now–even if the available evidence appears to invalidate it.
RE: You are a committed Christian and I have asked you to give me conclusions or explanations about what I saw. [cb25]
What exactly are you asking us here? Do you want conclusions or explanations as [you] see it? Please specify what questions you have asked non-(evolution) believers here, as you request for this it quite unclear to me. (I'm not as smart as you are).
Below is a copy of my question to Jean after a comment he made, plus a full copy of my response to your comment below it where, along with other points, you asked (tongue in cheek I figure) for a phont of a transitional species.
To Jean: "To give you a pointer or two: you may like to explain how two successive forrests of thousand year old trees, can be buried one on the other, with remains of more recent forests eroded back down, and subsequently re-forested. And all of that on a sandstone layer formed from seafloor, (but now is 60 meters above sea level in places) which overlays coal – coal which is formed by land based debris, which is overlain by volcanism, which has eroded down to landforms the are now the home of 2000 year old trees. Yes, you can make the extrapolations! I did not. "
"Let's put aside for now the photo you seek, and the assumptions of the guys who dated the trees at 40kyrs.
Let's you and I pretend they are dimwits. Now you tell me how you would explain the few things I suggested to Jean in those pointers. Those things are raw data, unaltered by man, they cannot lie. It just rests with you or I to understand what sequences, times, and events they may point to. I don't know who you are, but you write with enough clarity to suggest their signficance is not lost on you. Whether you have the integrity to grapple with them is up to you, but I think the photo of a tansitional critter is perhaps the easier option; dare I say cop out?"
I'm asking for conclusions or explanations as you see it. What I am not asking for is people to accuse me of saying things I did not say, or bringing in issues I did not raise as diversions or traps.
I'm sorry for the bold, can't seem to get rid of it.
typos:( translate phont as photo!
Gentlemen, we are not here to ridicule anyone's thoughts or beliefs. i am here to discuss the mysteries of God. None of us have certain answers. We are all searching with diligence to bring to the table the possibilities for these unknowns. We have open minds and its our lifes quest to learn all we can of God.
Perhaps there are a few true athiests responding, yet i believe most here are agnostic, or conservative with strong adherence to YEC and SDA doctrine & EGW, line upon line. Everyone can believe what they wish without attacks or ridicule. Just one further note, the positions put forward here by agnostics, sometimes draw very strong rebukes, and insinuations that the suppositions are impossible, from the conservative group, and this creates a lot of heat. Peace to all.
Timo,
I like what you have speculated. I have also thought along these lines. If the earth were chaotic, why was it so? Had there been a previous long earth time creation by a brilliant being that knew the evolution kind of creation? (Only God could do it in a short time.) As you point out, are there metaphores/parallels in the Bible? Perhaps they still existed at the time of the flood (it could have been local) when an asteroid did strike.
Since I am not sure the aging methods of today can calculate a different planet that existed in the past, so perhaps Lucifer's creation could have been in a different part of the earth, but I think the above is more plausible. But time, as we know it, only exists on this earth.
I know it's subjective, but partially I base my speculation on beauty. God created beauty and took into His ark of safety only what He had created that was "good". Now I know ugly when I see it, and dinasours are ugly!
I would like to commend Earl Calahan, for crediting most of the questioners with being agnostic rather than atheistic. It is an important distinction. I have become committed to only promote as true, those things that are shown to be consistent with the great body of "scientific truth". This committment does not allow me to be an athiest, and I think that the reason would apply to any scientist or engineer with a similar committment. We cannot know, on scientific evidence, that there is no God. We may know that certain assertions, of certain religions, are false, but we cannot know that there can be no true religion. In my experience, the more that a scientist or engineer knows, the more he realizes that he knows, but a miniscule fraction of the knowable. There is plenty of room in the vast knowable, for a true religion.
My presence on this forum, is because I was reared as an Adventist, and baptised an Adventist. My family has a lot of history with the Adventist movement. I am the namesake grandson of Newton Evans MD , one of the founding doctors of the College of Medical Evangelists, which has become Loma Linda University.
Hi Newton,
Welcome. I hope you'll post often.
Cheers,
dl
An agnostic has no fear in seriously studying the sacred scriptures. They is also no fear in using their mind and reason and logic to question traditional beliefs. Eventually, cognitive dissonance can no longer be buried and the surrender to admission of agnosticim is the only way to maintain both integrity and sanity.
Others may describe their journey in their own personal way.
Not sure if it has already been mentioned but what about the existence of flightless kiwi birds in NZ – how did they get there? Similarly, why is there no snakes in NZ?
Why are there no kangaroos in the Americas; or elephants in the Americas; or chimps or many other animals that are only native to one region. Great swimmers after the flood?
You're missing my point. Australia and America were once part of the supercontinent. Using a creationist model, they would say that kangaroos, chimps and elephants were all found there various ways to these various continents, where some survived and some died.
The Pacific Islands, including NZ and Hawaii are different, because they are volcanic islands that literally rose out of the ocean and were never connected to any continental mainland. As such, they only contain animals that are able to fly there or come on boats etc. That is why, for example, they generally don't have snakes.
These islands were settled by mankind relatively late – I believe NZ in around 1000-1500 CE. When humans did arrive, they found a number of large, flightless birds. The dodo is another example. Humans soon made sort shift of these birds not used to human predators and soon became extinct.
The simple question is, if these birds are flightless, and no human had yet visited the islands, how did they get there? I once ask a YEC scientist who visited our Church, and he admitted that the birds ancestors must have flown there, but the birds had since change to lose their flight abilities.
I have heard another scientist give a talk and use this example as simple proof of evolution in action before our very eyes. Another example is the rapid adaption of microorganisms, such as new anti-biotic resistence bacteria.
Of course, the YEC counter to this is to say the dodo and kiwi birds ancestors 'devolved' by losing flight, not evolved.
Stephen,
May I just correct one point? New Zealand once was part of mainland Australia. It broke away with its raft of life, which has since undergone extinction, change, renewal etc. This is why there is coal in parts of NZ which show similarities to that on the east coas of Oz.
Here's a good link:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/evolution-of-plants-and-animals/2
Human arrival is dated to around 1280. There is still some debate over whether Maori reports of previous inhabitants might be correct. So far there is no verified evidence for it. Evidence for settlement as early as 100 AD has been shown to be unreliable.
And what about my wider point about these flightless birds found on isolated volcanic islands? How did the birds get there?
Stephen,
I may be mistaken, but I think there are no relatively "young" islands like you speak of where there are flightless birds. It seems that they are all in the multi million year old range, and their flightless birds have diverged from flighted birds who arrived on wing.
Lord Howe Island for example is about 7 million years old, giving plenty of time for its woodhen to lose flight ability.
The larger ones noted above appear to predate break up/drift of land massess.
Yes my bad, I see NZ was once part of the super continent. Perhaps some where like Mauritius and the dodo bird is a better example.
David, Newton, and others. We share some rearing history. I wonder if you have any interest in a brief discussion of the "hard wired" inclination toward spirituality mentioned elsewhere by Stephen Ferguson (probably in reference to Hamer's "The God Gene…."). We seem to need some sort of tutorial in genomics, gene expression, neurogenomics, etc. I can help with this, but I'm sure others here have better understanding than I do (and, the reason I ask, is because it is also clear that some who comment on neurogenetics here and elsewhere, obviously have no clue about current understanding of genetics).
I have a few friends from New Zealand; truely one of The Most Beautiful places on earth. I had no idea that nearly 90% of the forests there have been destroyed. Wow! We wanted to visit Oz and New Zealand when we lived in Japan but never found time. Is there still some volcanism in the region or not? Are there the same % of Marsupials in New Zealand as well as on the Continent ?
Darrel,
There is volcanism. If you do a quick google on "latest news new zealand volcano" you'll see the latest one is well alive.
There are no native marsupials. A brush tail wallaby and a possum have been introduced.
The Maori had destroyed massive areas of forrest before Europeans arrived. Europeans hastened the demise. The maori's pretty much wiped out all flightless, edible, life. ie Moa.
The moa is related to the Ostrich, Australian Cassowarie, Emu etc, but the relationship may be different than is usually understood. Here's an interesting article on some research.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903172152.htm