Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 46 of 409 (684592)
12-18-2012 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
12-17-2012 11:25 PM


Re: Grand Canyon visible effects flood scenario
The erosion between the horizontal layers is NOT visible with the naked eye unless very close up.
See if you can spot the disconformity between the Redwall Limestone and the limestone that underlies it.
You don't exactly need a microscope, do you?
How about you find out the facts first, and then try to explain them? That's what geologists did. That's why they don't agree with you.
I'm talking about the neat horizontal layers from ABOVE the Great Unconformity to the top of the canyon.
So they're all horizontal apart from the ones that aren't --- and you're not talking about those?
I wonder why not?
Sorry if my number of years is incorrect ...
No you're not. If you were you could have spent ten seconds with Google finding out the correct number.
As for the other visible disturbances, yes they are also visible and I'm going to have to start including them with the formation of the canyon. Here's the theory: The tipping of the strata below the Great Unconformity, the unconformity itself, and the uplift all occurred at the same time as the cutting of the canyon, according to what I've been arguing here. It was all one event. Those strata could not have been in place for more than months or a year at most when that event with its separate effects occurred.
But look ...
Now, real geologists can make sense of this sequence of events. First the Grand Canyon Supergroup was deposited. Then it was tilted. Then it was eroded. Then the higher formations were laid down. Then the canyon was cut.
But your way ... well, how was the G.C.S. tilted while leaving the Tapeats Sandstone, the Bright Angel Shale, the Muav Limestone, and so forth on the same level on both sides of the canyon? And what happened to the north ends of the strata in the G.C.S?
And what caused the unconformity? What caused any of the erosional surfaces? You said run-off from the flood, and when I asked you to explain that cryptic remark you posted this:
The Flood deposited the entire stack of sediments with their fossil contents over some hundreds, maybe even thousands of square miles, quite flat and horizontal from Arizona through Utah and even into Nevada and California, all in some unknown but relatively short period of time, weeks at a minimum, year at max.
After they were all in place to a depth of at least two miles, tectonic and volcanic force from beneath caused the tilting of the lower strata and the formation of the Great Unconformity, the heat forming the schist and the volcano supplying the granite, and at the same time raising the entire stack into the uplift.
That uplifting of the stack caused the upper layers to crack and remaining Flood water or perhaps the water from remaining standing lakes in the area, flooded into the cracks taking chunks of strata with it, and carved out the canyon. Massively debris-laden water. After the canyon was carved out and the water settled down to a roar forming the horseshoe bend and all that, the water between the exposed layers was continuing to run off. Probably for quite some time.
... which does not, in fact, explain it.
There's the whole picture. It's really very reasonable and geological.
It is barely comprehensible, and it is certainly not geological.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 11:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 12-18-2012 11:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 47 of 409 (684595)
12-18-2012 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
12-18-2012 12:30 AM


quote:
I DEFINE IT FOR PURPOSES OF MOST DISCUSSIONS HERE HISTORICALLY, by the great names in its history who agree on the BASICS of the faith.
It seems to be more for your personal convenience. You didn't want to admit that there were Churches which allowed people to take non-YEC views so you suddenly reversed your position and made YEC belief a defining point of Christianity.
The fact that a belief was historically held within the Church is NOT sufficient to make it an unchallengeable dogma, however much you would like to say otherwise.
quote:
By the standards you are employing here you all ought to recognize that your belief in evolution is just as personal and "subjective" as you keep imputing my beliefs to me. Do that and then we can get back to reality.
In reality that claim is false. Even if we talk about authority then we have a genuine scientific consensus while you only have a consensus manufactured from selecting people who agree with the very view under question !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 12-18-2012 12:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Faith, posted 12-19-2012 12:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 409 (684596)
12-18-2012 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
12-17-2012 11:00 PM


Re: age of fossils
quote:
That's not something you can SEE, Coragyps, that's THEORY you impose on what you see that causes you to believe there is an age difference.
We can't see what rock a fossil is found in ? Looking at fossils in rock is "THEORY" ?
quote:
My point, to try to get back to it, is that the stack of strata to the naked eye (and not close enough to make out fossils), shows no signs of age differences whatever, and that there was no appreciable disturbance to them at all until the canyon was cut through the whole stack. Don't give me teeny little disturbances like erosion between layers that you have to get up close to see and was no doubt caused by water runoff after the Flood.
I think you mean that to the uneducated eye relying on long-distance photographs of the Grand Canyon walls the signs of age aren't obvious. The limitations of that approach should be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 12-19-2012 12:49 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 409 (684632)
12-18-2012 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
12-17-2012 11:39 PM


Yet the very term and description was first used by Karl Marx and so far you have never shown there is some Protestant ethic.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 11:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 50 of 409 (684636)
12-18-2012 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
12-17-2012 11:00 PM


Re: age of fossils
is that the stack of strata Bible to the naked eye (and not close enough to make out fossils pages), shows no signs of age differences inconsistencies whatever....
Can you truly not see, Faith, that this is precisely the sort of argument that you are using? Is it utterly impossible for you to consider that it is Faith that could be wrong about something in this discussion, instead of an apostate atheist evolutionist? You have been asking us to examine ourselves and see if we could be wrong. Why can't that request apply to you?

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 11:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 51 of 409 (684659)
12-18-2012 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
12-18-2012 12:17 AM


Re: Grand Canyon visible effects flood scenario
Dear Faith,
My question is what do you really fear in losing the YEC position? You still get to believe in Jesus and all the good things he stands for. You still get to believe in all the really important things in your life.
What is the problem with OEC?
Sincerely,

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 12-18-2012 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 409 (684673)
12-18-2012 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
12-17-2012 1:49 PM


How do you conclude that the Bible is the word of God? Doesn't it have to conform to reality in some way to be considered reliable?
Reality is that the geological record could not have accumulated in 6000 years. The Bible is wrong about that, period. You can't just say that the sky "must be" green because the Bible sez so. Looking out the window proves it isn't so. Reality is where you have to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 12-19-2012 11:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 53 of 409 (684677)
12-18-2012 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by foreveryoung
12-17-2012 4:32 PM


foreveryoung writes:
Do you think the word "day" always has to mean 24 hours?
In the context in which it is used in Genesis 1, yes, it always means 24 hours. Hebrew scholars seem to agree on that.
foreveryoung writes:
Do you think the phrase "the whole world" has to mean the entire planet known to us today that is the third planet from the sun?
No. In Genesis 1 it refers to the whole world of ancient Hebrew cosmology, a flat disk with a bowl-shaped firmament over it. The sun was a lamp hanging from the "ceiling" of the firmament.
I don't think there's any reason to think "the whole world" was meant to refer to somebody's back yard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by foreveryoung, posted 12-17-2012 4:32 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 1:21 PM ringo has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(2)
Message 54 of 409 (684709)
12-18-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ringo
12-18-2012 12:12 PM


In the context in which it is used in Genesis 1, yes, it always means 24 hours. Hebrew scholars seem to agree on that.
So you think the writer of Genesis 1 thought all of creation was created in 6 literal 24 hour days?
ringo writes:
I don't think there's any reason to think "the whole world" was meant to refer to somebody's back yard.
Don't you think if noah lived near the black sea and the whole area was submerged for over a year, that noah would consider the whole world to be flooded?
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 12-18-2012 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 12-18-2012 1:46 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 56 by xongsmith, posted 12-18-2012 3:02 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 55 of 409 (684725)
12-18-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
12-18-2012 1:21 PM


foreveryoung writes:
So you think the writer of Genesis 1 thought all of creation was created in 6 literal 24 hour days?
I don't try to read the minds of the people who wrote, compiled and redacted the Genesis story. What it says quite plainly is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. I don't see any reason to think the authors believed otherwise. (Personally, I've never understood why an omnipotent God would take that long.)
foreveryoung writes:
Don't you think if noah lived near the black sea and the whole area was submerged for over a year, that noah would consider the whole world to be flooded?
Certainly. I've seen a few local floods in my own lifetime and they all reach "as far as the eye can see." However, that would entirely negate the substance of the story. "I'm going to destroy sinful mankind," would be a pretty lame boast if it happened every year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 1:21 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 3:05 PM ringo has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 56 of 409 (684760)
12-18-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
12-18-2012 1:21 PM


FEY says:
Don't you think if Noah lived near the black sea and the whole area was submerged for over a year, that Noah would consider the whole world to be flooded?
Thank you.
Indeed, it might just be MOST probable.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 1:21 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 57 of 409 (684762)
12-18-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
12-18-2012 1:46 PM


I don't try to read the minds of the people who wrote, compiled and redacted the Genesis story. What it says quite plainly is that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days. I don't see any reason to think the authors believed otherwise. (Personally, I've never understood why an omnipotent God would take that long.)
You don't know the genesis story was compiled and redacted by other people. As far as anyone knows, the whole story came to us straight from moses. Just because it says quite plainly to you that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days does not mean that moses intended that meaning. If moses was trying to convey the message that his monotheistic God, the God of the hebrews, was the creator of the world to a bunch of polytheistic nations that surrounded the small hebrew nation and who communicated by way of stories, then 6 literal 24 hour days is probably not what was intended. You don't know the motivation behind the writing of Genesis so what is obvious to you is probably not the truth of the matter.
Certainly. I've seen a few local floods in my own lifetime and they all reach "as far as the eye can see." However, that would entirely negate the substance of the story. "I'm going to destroy sinful mankind," would be a pretty lame boast if it happened every year.
Perhaps, if it went down as you say it did. Remember a few points. Noah's world was not the whole world. All of sinful mankind may not be referring to Homo sapiens. We know as a fact that there was an evolution of homonids all the way from australopithicus to homosapiens. We also know that before cro-magnon man, culture and self expression and probably language was non- existent was far as we can tell. The Genesis story seems to indicate the Adam was a special creation whereas the animals and plants etc, were said to have come into existence by "letting the earth bring them forth" (aka evolution). Genesis uses exact years for the age of the patriarchs and the ages at which they gave birth to their first male child.
What if culture and self expression and self consciousness were created in the person of Adam around the time of cro-magnon man, and when adam was thrown out of the garden, his progeny intermarried with the homonoids in existence at that time ( homo-ergaster?). The progeny of Adam that did not breed with the other homonoid species are the ones that lived extremely long times and probably did not want to associate with them. It is likely they lived in an area all to themselves such as the black sea area. When they were flooded, you could rightly say that all mankind was destroyed, if you only counted those who were specially created in the garden of eden and not those who evolved from earlier homonids.
This would have been a one time ordeal if interbreeding with other homonids took off after the flood. The declining ages of the genesis patriarchs seems to indicate this. Yearly floods could have indeed occurred but they would only wipe out a segment of the population and they certainly would not have wiped out mankind since mankind was no longer purebreed and was widespread throughout the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 12-18-2012 1:46 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 12-18-2012 3:19 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 59 by dwise1, posted 12-18-2012 3:43 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-19-2012 11:12 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 58 of 409 (684765)
12-18-2012 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by foreveryoung
12-18-2012 3:05 PM


Noah's world was the whole world. Even a thousands of years before Adam humans knew that the world was far larger than just the area they called home. There was trade for food stuffs and trinkets, precious objects and ideas. The folk living along the coast of the Black Sea or in the flat lands of Mesopotamia were not ignorant of travelers, trade goods, stories, gods ...
And yes, if you read Genesis 1 which was written long, long after Genesis 2, it does show that the meaning was to define days as a cycle of night and day and the sacred week as six working days and one non-working day.
The whole point of Genesis 1 is days and weeks.
Edited by jar, : had a paren in there for some reason

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 3:05 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 12-19-2012 11:45 AM jar has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 59 of 409 (684769)
12-18-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by foreveryoung
12-18-2012 3:05 PM


You don't know the genesis story was compiled and redacted by other people. As far as anyone knows, the whole story came to us straight from moses.
What is the actual history of the writing down of the Torah, AKA the Pentateuch? IOW, how long were those stories passed on as oral tradition before they were written down?
Biblical scholars place the writing during the Babylonian exile, cerca 600 BCE. Since Moses is dated by Judaism at about 1300 BCE (and even earlier by Christian tradition), that means the Books of Moses were oral tradition for about seven centuries.
A lot can happen to an oral tradition in seven centuries. A lot can even happen within just a couple generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by foreveryoung, posted 12-18-2012 3:05 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 60 of 409 (684849)
12-18-2012 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2012 12:36 AM


Re: Grand Canyon visible effects flood scenario
I'm talking about looking at the walls of the Grand Canyon from some distance, from which you can see their nice neat flat horizontal undisturbed condition UNTIL THE CANYON WAS CUT THROUGH THE ENTIRE STACK, which occured at the same time as the formation of the Great Unconformity and the uplift.
No.
YES It's really very obvious once you get the blinders off.
ABE: The picture just showed up after I posted this. I have no idea what it's supposed to illustrate.
And besides, why should there be any erosion at all if they just sat unexposed to weathering for billions of years.
They didn't sit unexposed to weathering for billions of years. Hence the erosion.
I don't think you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about erosion BETWEEN the layers, which people always bring up as some kind of proof against the idea that the layers wree undisturbed, what are you talking about?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2012 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024