Stunning New Evidence of a Higher Ancient Sea Level

ICR ^ | February 25, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Stunning New Evidence of a Higher Ancient Sea Level

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

According to the record in Genesis, there was a time when the entire surface of the earth was inundated with water. This possibility has been ridiculed because of questions regarding the origin and destination of all the extra water that supposedly would have been required to accomplish this.1 But newly described fossils of marine creatures found in a rock quarry in Bermuda indicate that ancient sea levels used to be 70 feet higher than they are today, which presents a puzzle to standard geological thinking.2

Geologist Paul Hearty’s investigation a decade ago into similar sea-level signs “was met with skepticism among geologists,” but his team’s new data is even more compelling. Hearty and Smithsonian zoologist Storrs Olson, whose research appears in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews, found “cobbles and marine sediments,” along with “rim cements.” These features could only exist where they were found if the sea level had been sustained at a higher elevation.3

There is little room for doubt now that sea levels have changed over time. This evidence does not fit with naturalistic theories of origins, which assume that presently observable processes were responsible for all past geologic events. Such an assumption arbitrarily omits the testimony of ancient written records, including the Bible and its account of Noah’s Flood. According to Scripture, the ancient earth was overflowed by water entirely. Thus, at some point, the sea level would have been higher than it is today.

The evidence at Bermuda can be interpreted according to either a creationist or an evolutionary viewpoint. However, the naturalistic evolutionary view must blindly guess at what could have caused the ocean to be 70 feet higher in the past, while Bible-based history relies on the eyewitness account of a world-destroying flood—a fitting place to begin an interpretation of the Bermuda marine fossils.

References

1. It has been noted elsewhere that “if the earth's surface were completely flat,…water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet.” (Morris, J. D. 2003. Did Noah’s Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains? Acts & Facts. 32 (9).) More than enough water exists to account for the global Flood, and the reshaping of the earth that would have taken place during such a cataclysm is reflected in the deep oceans and high mountains that currently exist.

2. Scientists Uncover a Dramatic Rise in Sea Level and Its Broad Ramifications. Smithsonian Institution press release, February 9, 2009.

3. Olson, S. L., and P. J. Hearty. 2009. A sustained +21 m sea-level highstand during MIS 11 (400 ka): direct fossil and sedimentary evidence from Bermuda. Quaternary Science Reviews. 28 (3-4): 271-285.

[Non-Sequitur]

Scientists have found proof in Bermuda that the planet’s sea level was once more than 21 meters (70 feet) higher about 400,000 years ago than it is now.

Wasn't that about 394,000 years before Bermuda was created?

[dirtboy]

Surely you know better than to think I accept long-age uniformitarianism. The point of posting this, like so many other papers and articles I post, is to show that God’s creation is forcing the Evos ever closer to the creationist position.

Which means you cherry-pick the factiod you want while ignoring all the other inconvenient facts. My point EXACTLY about your movement.

[Non-Sequitur]

Because pure water evaporates from the ocean, leaving behind the salt. That water then falls as rain, possibly upon the salty earth. Water that falls on the salty earth returns to the ocean carrying salt with it. Pure water evaporates from the ocean, leaving behind the salt.

So cover the earth with 8000 feet of salty water and where does the fresh water come from?

[Aliska]

Thanks for the honesty

Yeah, not so good on the ego. It's only a problem when I'm trying to talk about something I think I know more about, the ego that is. To make matters worse, I think I misspelled hymenoptera and lepidoptera, not sure.

Sometimes you don't get to take the make up test because it's the final exam.

Would I study more science if I could live my life over? Botany, yes, and a more general knowledge about all the new discoveries that have come to light plus the old I missed because other subjects interested me more at the time. But there are areas of science I'd rather not work in our times, so maybe it's just as well.

I won't say it hasn't jolted my faith, what I have of it. I didn't pick it up so much at home, but biblical thinking was in my culture. The hardest part for me was to keep my faith and then be exposed to such different thinking in the university and particularly an Anthropology course my father encouraged me to take.

It caused a great amount of mental discomfort and anguish, and I never succeeded in reconciling it very well compared to the way some have. Notice the OP was mocked by some, not familiar with that poster, but that's kind of the way it is.

So I've put each in compartments, and can reconcile the conflict only in part, try to be open to different thinking but afraid of losing my faith altogether. Some seem to have no problem at all with it. And of course some turn to atheism which, to me, is like jumping into the abyss, but that's just me. But I have to be super honest and think that is part of what keeps me from pushing the envelope on certain aspects of it more.

Have to take a break, didn't expect such a good discussion and answers with a lot aimed at my direction.

[OneVike]

Which means you cherry-pick the factiod you want while ignoring all the other inconvenient facts

As I listen to those of you who profess the things you believe in, I pay attention to the names of the various scientists you claim to get your evidence from. Well these so-called scientists and geologists also claim that humans, especially American humans, are guilty for the cause of global warming.

So, you do the same thing you accuse our side of doing, you cherry pick the ideas of these idiots to get the conclusions you are looking for.

Interesting how we all do that. That is because every person will use what evidence supports our ideas, while ignoring the idiotic portions of the study that are just put in because most scientists and geologists have preconceived ideas they want to prove.

I am still waiting for someone who believes in Darwin's theory of evolution, to ignore any evidence brought forward by any scientist that also supports "Man-made Global Warming" as a fact.

You expect us to not cherry pick, yet you do the very same thing.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Which means you cherry-pick the factiod you want while ignoring all the other inconvenient facts. My point EXACTLY about your movement.

You are quite mistaken. We look at the exact same data, and are forced by the weight of the evidence to reinterpret it. Long-age uniformitarianism is an assumption, not a fact. Thus the Evo assumption of 400,000 years in no way falls under the category of cherry-picked factoids.

[dirtboy]

Well these so-called scientists and geologists also claim that humans, especially American humans, are guilty for the cause of global warming.

Actually, the Young Earth creationists and the Global Warming types are the ones with the same approach - they start with a belief and then cherry-pick or warp the data to buttress that belief. There are plenty of scientists who do not go along with AGW, but you seldom hear of them in the MSM. But the point is, both are bad science for the exact same reason.

[OneVike]

Show me a creationist who believes in global warming???????????

However I can point out millions of evolutionists who believe in global warming.

Think before you type, you have a presupposed idea and you want to make it fit the argument. You make my point!

[dirtboy]

Show me a creationist who believes in global warming???????????

I said no such thing. I am just noting the two groups use a similar method - that of starting with a conclusion and a belief.

[OneVike]

And I too say all sides use the method, but like I said in my original comment. You make my point about not owning up to doing it also. You would rather accuse the other side and say you don't do it.

I admit all sides do, that is how we come about our beliefs. You and I do it, we all do it. Now own up to it and quit saying only one side does it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[dirtboy]

You make my point about not owning up to doing it also. You would rather accuse the other side and say you don't do it.

Hardly. First of all, I have my own diveregences in viewpoints from Darwinian evolution. I do not have a major problem with many theories of ID, because they are not an affront to the geological record - I don't agree with them, but they don't create impossible geological events to fit into the geological record.

Second, I have taken upper-division coursework in geology and have gone on field geology trips as well, including a fair stint in the Rockies. So I do have some actual exposure to this subject.

Third, I believe that geological theories continue to need to prove themselves - for example, the Rockies are very difficult to explain through existing plate tectonic theories, and many prominent geologists (usually those in the field and not back in the universities) continually raise these issues. Young Earthers come up with completely imposssible and contractictory scenarios - and then justify that by sniping at actual scientists engaging in actual scientific debate over new research as some kind of 'proof' that they are correct.

So your attempt to lump me in with the likes of Young Earthers and AGW types is an

[qam1]

Show me a creationist who believes in global warming???????????

Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative

Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."

"For most of us, until recently this has not been treated as a pressing issue or major priority," the statement said. "Indeed, many of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that climate change is a real problem and that it ought to matter to us as Christians. But now we have seen and heard enough."

The statement calls for federal legislation that would require reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through "cost-effective, market-based mechanisms" — a phrase lifted from a Senate resolution last year and one that could appeal to evangelicals, who tend to be pro-business. The statement, to be announced in Washington, is only the first stage of an "Evangelical Climate Initiative" including television and radio spots in states with influential legislators, informational campaigns in churches, and educational events at Christian colleges.

"We have not paid as much attention to climate change as we should, and that's why I'm willing to step up," said Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, an influential evangelical institution in Illinois. "The evangelical community is quite capable of having some blind spots, and my take is this has fallen into that category."

[vpintheak]

Hey, if you don’t like it, don’t read it, or don’t comment on it. Exercise your “vision of exellence” by not being a jerk.

[headsonpikes]

Taking a cue from your tagline, I rarely give way to the wicked.

So I’ll post away whether I think the article concerned is gold or rubbish.

[OneVike]

I don't accept left wing evangelicals who for the most part don't even accept the deity of Christ or that somewhere in the scriptures they find God condoning homosexuality. These are NOT Christians they are heretics.

Try again!

[vpintheak]

Good for you. I know you are prepared to take the heat for it, oh mighty keeper of the intelligence flame.

[OneVike]

Also I have many problems with Rick Warren including his ideas of accepting a "lets go along to get along mentality".

I do not agree with sitting down with church movements that have moved away from the fundamentals Jesus taught with the idea that we can somehow come to an agreement that will be acceptable to all.

There is no way outside of the Scriptures to win a man's soul to God.

[headsonpikes]

Thank you.

[qam1]

Show me a creationist who believes in global warming???????????

Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative

I don't accept left wing evangelicals who for the most part don't even accept the deity of Christ or that somewhere in the scriptures they find God condoning homosexuality. These are NOT Christians they are heretics. Try again!

Moving the goal post, another similar tactic used by both the AGWers and Creationist.

Try again!

Ok Keep those bagpipes

out A GREEN GOSPEL.Poll: 70% of evangelicals see global warming threat

A poll released today shows 70 percent of American evangelical Christians see global warming as a "serious threat" to the future of the planet.

Conducted by Ellison Research, the survey indicates a majority of evangelicals agree with 85 Christian leaders who signed an Evangelical Climate Initiative unveiled Feb. 8 that calls for government action to deal with so-called global warming. The initiative includes a campaign of newspaper, TV and radio ads.