For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|
Sunday
Morning Service : 10:30AM
Sunday school
2:00PM to 3:30 PM (Term Time Only)
Admission Free and all Children are welcome.
Session 1: 2:00PM -2:30PM: Craft & Activity Sheets
Free Refreshment will be served.
Session 2: 2:30PM-3:00 PM: Bible Talk Hymn Singing
Session 3: Games & Play Time
Evening Service : 6:30PM
Tuesday
Ladies Meeting: 2:30PM
Life Explored: 7:30PM
Wednesday
Bible study : 2PM
Bible study & Prayer meeting: 6:30PM
Thursday
Mums & Toddlers(Walmer Toddlers): 9:30AM-11:30AM
Saturday
Tea & Coffee Morning : 10:00AM-12:00PM
Morning Service : 10:30AM
Sunday school
2:00PM to 3:30 PM (Term Time Only)
Admission Free and all Children are welcome.
Session 1: 2:00PM -2:30PM: Craft & Activity Sheets
Free Refreshment will be served.
Session 2: 2:30PM-3:00 PM: Bible Talk Hymn Singing
Session 3: Games & Play Time
Evening Service : 6:30PM
Tuesday
Ladies Meeting: 2:30PM
Life Explored: 7:30PM
Wednesday
Bible study : 2PM
Bible study & Prayer meeting: 6:30PM
Thursday
Mums & Toddlers(Walmer Toddlers): 9:30AM-11:30AM
Saturday
Tea & Coffee Morning : 10:00AM-12:00PM
Science at Walmer Chapel: The Biblical Creation Trust
Two Scientific Presentations by Paul Garner
This took place on
Friday, March 22nd . The talks were
7.00pm: 99% missing, or where did the (geological) time go?
8.00pm: The white cliffs of Dover: a result of Noah's Flood?
Paul Garner is a full-time Researcher and Lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust (www.biblicalcreationtrust.org). He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009.
Here is a write-up on the content of the second talk:
Paul Garner, Walmer Chapel 22-03-19 pm – The White Cliffs of Dover – A result of Noah’s Flood?
Paul began by recommending two books:
Brand & Chadwick – Faith, Reason, and Earth History
Don DeYoung – Thousands Not Billions
(and a website where one is reviewed): https://isgenesishistory.com/faith-reason-earth-history/
Chalk is considered difficult to explain in terms of rapid deposition, the conditions necessary for the global flood model. It is often cited as evidence against a young earth and literal flood.
But more careful analysis shows quite the contrary.
First, what is chalk? It’s a kind of limestone composed of billions of marine organisms, at least their moulted or dead shells. As such it is a highly porous mineral.
Chalk is especially associated with the upper Cretaceous part of the geological column; the name Cretaceous being derived from chalk (Paradigm shift: It’s a layer, not a period of time).
Chalk beds are spread throughout the south and east of England, with a thickness of about 400 metres. In Denmark this increases up to 2 km.
More chalks of various kinds are found all over Europe, the Middle East, Russia, North America – and even Australia, where it has the same black flints, and the same fossils, as in Europe.
A book was referenced at this point: Derek Ager, The Nature of the Statigraphical Record.
The cretaceous chalks are composed mainly of coccoliths, that is, the tiny plates shed by certain algae.
How did the deposits form?
Old-earthers would naturally ask, ‘Where are these algae today?’
Well we do find them in the ocean, and in some places there are layers of sea-floor sediment from their long-term moulting and death. The substance formed is calcareous ooze.
It is estimated that from 2 to 10cm of sediment form every 1000 years.
Bearing in mind that the fossil chalk of southern England is 405m thick, and 1m of chalk is assumed to take 100 000 years, we seem to be in the long-ages ballpark.
But is there any evidence that they were deposited in a year-long flood? Given the sheer size of the deposits – could all that have descended and settled in such concentration, during one year?
This is why it’s often raised as an objection against the flood model.
Under present conditions, they say, a coccolith is so lightweight, it can take 100 years to descend the 4-5000 metres to the sea floor.
But on closer inspection, the evidence seems to run in a different direction.
For a start, modern coccoliths are much smaller than their fossilised counterparts.
Then, the Cretaceous formation itself suggests a much shallower sea at the time of deposition.
Observed coccoliths today sink much faster than thought, for a number of reasons.
Larger animals eat them on the way down, and excrete them as pellets which sink faster. The coccoliths themselves are also covered in sticky secretions that cause them to clump together. This is known as the flocculation of coccoliths.
Experiments done in tanks showed that the ooze deposits accumulated faster than expected because the particles aggregated together – so much so that the issue of settling is not a problem for the flood model.
But what about biological productivity? Could they breed fast enough to form the massive deposits we see today? All the various chalk beds found around the world – all formed at the same time – is it possible?
It depends on sunlight, and the availability of nutrients such as nitrogen. These are the factors.
Nutrients in the ocean are very low today, but great algal blooms occur under exceptional conditions. At those times, they are among the fastest multiplying creatures on earth.
If the ideal conditions are sustained, it is extrapolated that 100m of sediment is possible in less than 200 years.
And at that rate, only 4.1% of the earth’s surface need produce coccoliths to generate all current chalk in only 1600-1700 years.
But what about the single year of the flood itself? Until now we have been assuming uniformitarian rates – the present is the key to the past – such is the common view.
But modern sea-floor oozes are different from ancient chalks. Today, the coccolith population is episodic. Out of the blue, sudden concentrations, explosive blooms, appear in isolated locations, turning the oceans a milky-white, that is visible even from space.
The factors seem to be various:
Turbulence in the waters
The effects of high winds
The presence of decaying organic matter
Nutrients in the water such as iron, sulphur dioxide, and especially calcium
and Changes to the water temperature
And these are the very conditions predicted by the flood geological model.
What is proposed for the year of the flood is catastrophic plate tectonics – whole areas of land being buried not just beneath the sea, but beneath the earth’s crust. And that crust opening in other places causing massive volcanic activity, which when under the oceans will boil the deepest high-pressure waters, causing jets of steam powerful enough to leave earth’s atmosphere, but containing the very minerals desirable for coccolith blooms, along with the turbulence, superheating, dead matter etc. (Gen. 7:11)
At the same time the molten sea floor would be thermally buoyant, causing sea-levels to rise, and the oceans to spread over the continents (Gen. 7:19).
When the flood ended, the lava cooled, and normal conditions returned. All this would fulfil not only the biblical flood, but also the conditions for sustained and widespread plankton blooms.
Volcanoes released nutrients into the oceans, raised temperatures, caused greater turbulence in both the sea and the air.
Cretaceous chalks are much purer than present oozes. How was all the mud and sand kept out for so many millions of years? Or did it not have time to get in at all?
The chalk deposits are piled into heaps and banks, with deep erosion channels in between layers, suggesting strong currents at the time of formation.
Even mainstream geology is having to be rethought, when it comes to the chalk beds. There is evidence there of volcanic activity – the marl, clay and flints are formed from the volcanic ash.
The bedding of the chalk is rhythmic. There are a series of shaded layers, those purer, alternating with those with more clay.
The oxygen isotopes are lower in the pure chalks, and higher in the marls – this indicates the seawater temperature at the time of formation. So the chalk was around 4.5º cooler when marl was deposited with it.
What this suggests is successive volcanic bursts of nutrients causing further blooms, before other catastrophic events killed much of them off. Among the fossils found in chalk, there are perfectly preserved starfish and the like – not decayed or scavenged at all. Such soft-bodied creatures must be quickly buried in a substantial mass of sediment to prevent rotting.
Fish have also been found - again perfectly preserved, not crushed at all. Often with curved spines, gaping mouths – these fish died of suffocation and were entombed in their last throes.
Many fossils show signs of transport before burial – they were washed in by tides or currents. Long structured fossils like belemnites, are all aligned in one direction – that of the current that brought them?
We also see fossils of creatures in unnatural positions – as if rolled around, embedded and buried rapidly.
Now, these chalk sediments are found on the continents, above sea level. They have been raised up, and we can now trace individual layers for vast distances. The same layer pattern found on the Isle of Wight is also visible in the Crimea. Nothing else in geology compares to this.
So the conclusion is this: Rapid deposition – by fast-flowing currents – associated with volcanism – driving a series of algal blooms – on a global scale – with ocean waters over the land.
The flood model therefore much better explains what is observed in the chalk layers.
And therefore let all humanity take warning, given that the flood was a judgment, and its veracity authenticates also the coming judgment, by fire (2 Peter 3:1-7).
Two Scientific Presentations by Paul Garner
This took place on
Friday, March 22nd . The talks were
7.00pm: 99% missing, or where did the (geological) time go?
8.00pm: The white cliffs of Dover: a result of Noah's Flood?
Paul Garner is a full-time Researcher and Lecturer for Biblical Creation Trust (www.biblicalcreationtrust.org). He has an MSc in Geoscience from University College London, where he specialised in palaeobiology. He is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London and a member of several other scientific societies. His first book, The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation, was published by Evangelical Press in 2009.
Here is a write-up on the content of the second talk:
Paul Garner, Walmer Chapel 22-03-19 pm – The White Cliffs of Dover – A result of Noah’s Flood?
Paul began by recommending two books:
Brand & Chadwick – Faith, Reason, and Earth History
Don DeYoung – Thousands Not Billions
(and a website where one is reviewed): https://isgenesishistory.com/faith-reason-earth-history/
Chalk is considered difficult to explain in terms of rapid deposition, the conditions necessary for the global flood model. It is often cited as evidence against a young earth and literal flood.
But more careful analysis shows quite the contrary.
First, what is chalk? It’s a kind of limestone composed of billions of marine organisms, at least their moulted or dead shells. As such it is a highly porous mineral.
Chalk is especially associated with the upper Cretaceous part of the geological column; the name Cretaceous being derived from chalk (Paradigm shift: It’s a layer, not a period of time).
Chalk beds are spread throughout the south and east of England, with a thickness of about 400 metres. In Denmark this increases up to 2 km.
More chalks of various kinds are found all over Europe, the Middle East, Russia, North America – and even Australia, where it has the same black flints, and the same fossils, as in Europe.
A book was referenced at this point: Derek Ager, The Nature of the Statigraphical Record.
The cretaceous chalks are composed mainly of coccoliths, that is, the tiny plates shed by certain algae.
How did the deposits form?
Old-earthers would naturally ask, ‘Where are these algae today?’
Well we do find them in the ocean, and in some places there are layers of sea-floor sediment from their long-term moulting and death. The substance formed is calcareous ooze.
It is estimated that from 2 to 10cm of sediment form every 1000 years.
Bearing in mind that the fossil chalk of southern England is 405m thick, and 1m of chalk is assumed to take 100 000 years, we seem to be in the long-ages ballpark.
But is there any evidence that they were deposited in a year-long flood? Given the sheer size of the deposits – could all that have descended and settled in such concentration, during one year?
This is why it’s often raised as an objection against the flood model.
Under present conditions, they say, a coccolith is so lightweight, it can take 100 years to descend the 4-5000 metres to the sea floor.
But on closer inspection, the evidence seems to run in a different direction.
For a start, modern coccoliths are much smaller than their fossilised counterparts.
Then, the Cretaceous formation itself suggests a much shallower sea at the time of deposition.
Observed coccoliths today sink much faster than thought, for a number of reasons.
Larger animals eat them on the way down, and excrete them as pellets which sink faster. The coccoliths themselves are also covered in sticky secretions that cause them to clump together. This is known as the flocculation of coccoliths.
Experiments done in tanks showed that the ooze deposits accumulated faster than expected because the particles aggregated together – so much so that the issue of settling is not a problem for the flood model.
But what about biological productivity? Could they breed fast enough to form the massive deposits we see today? All the various chalk beds found around the world – all formed at the same time – is it possible?
It depends on sunlight, and the availability of nutrients such as nitrogen. These are the factors.
Nutrients in the ocean are very low today, but great algal blooms occur under exceptional conditions. At those times, they are among the fastest multiplying creatures on earth.
If the ideal conditions are sustained, it is extrapolated that 100m of sediment is possible in less than 200 years.
And at that rate, only 4.1% of the earth’s surface need produce coccoliths to generate all current chalk in only 1600-1700 years.
But what about the single year of the flood itself? Until now we have been assuming uniformitarian rates – the present is the key to the past – such is the common view.
But modern sea-floor oozes are different from ancient chalks. Today, the coccolith population is episodic. Out of the blue, sudden concentrations, explosive blooms, appear in isolated locations, turning the oceans a milky-white, that is visible even from space.
The factors seem to be various:
Turbulence in the waters
The effects of high winds
The presence of decaying organic matter
Nutrients in the water such as iron, sulphur dioxide, and especially calcium
and Changes to the water temperature
And these are the very conditions predicted by the flood geological model.
What is proposed for the year of the flood is catastrophic plate tectonics – whole areas of land being buried not just beneath the sea, but beneath the earth’s crust. And that crust opening in other places causing massive volcanic activity, which when under the oceans will boil the deepest high-pressure waters, causing jets of steam powerful enough to leave earth’s atmosphere, but containing the very minerals desirable for coccolith blooms, along with the turbulence, superheating, dead matter etc. (Gen. 7:11)
At the same time the molten sea floor would be thermally buoyant, causing sea-levels to rise, and the oceans to spread over the continents (Gen. 7:19).
When the flood ended, the lava cooled, and normal conditions returned. All this would fulfil not only the biblical flood, but also the conditions for sustained and widespread plankton blooms.
Volcanoes released nutrients into the oceans, raised temperatures, caused greater turbulence in both the sea and the air.
Cretaceous chalks are much purer than present oozes. How was all the mud and sand kept out for so many millions of years? Or did it not have time to get in at all?
The chalk deposits are piled into heaps and banks, with deep erosion channels in between layers, suggesting strong currents at the time of formation.
Even mainstream geology is having to be rethought, when it comes to the chalk beds. There is evidence there of volcanic activity – the marl, clay and flints are formed from the volcanic ash.
The bedding of the chalk is rhythmic. There are a series of shaded layers, those purer, alternating with those with more clay.
The oxygen isotopes are lower in the pure chalks, and higher in the marls – this indicates the seawater temperature at the time of formation. So the chalk was around 4.5º cooler when marl was deposited with it.
What this suggests is successive volcanic bursts of nutrients causing further blooms, before other catastrophic events killed much of them off. Among the fossils found in chalk, there are perfectly preserved starfish and the like – not decayed or scavenged at all. Such soft-bodied creatures must be quickly buried in a substantial mass of sediment to prevent rotting.
Fish have also been found - again perfectly preserved, not crushed at all. Often with curved spines, gaping mouths – these fish died of suffocation and were entombed in their last throes.
Many fossils show signs of transport before burial – they were washed in by tides or currents. Long structured fossils like belemnites, are all aligned in one direction – that of the current that brought them?
We also see fossils of creatures in unnatural positions – as if rolled around, embedded and buried rapidly.
Now, these chalk sediments are found on the continents, above sea level. They have been raised up, and we can now trace individual layers for vast distances. The same layer pattern found on the Isle of Wight is also visible in the Crimea. Nothing else in geology compares to this.
So the conclusion is this: Rapid deposition – by fast-flowing currents – associated with volcanism – driving a series of algal blooms – on a global scale – with ocean waters over the land.
The flood model therefore much better explains what is observed in the chalk layers.
And therefore let all humanity take warning, given that the flood was a judgment, and its veracity authenticates also the coming judgment, by fire (2 Peter 3:1-7).