Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8022 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2014 12:10 AM
180 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Post Volume:
Total: 724,280 Year: 10,121/28,606 Month: 1,811/2,455 Week: 529/592 Day: 1/173 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Geological question. (Sea floor sediment accumulation)
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2002
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 31 of 38 (400311)
05-12-2007 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by edge
05-12-2007 3:33 AM


Make That 101
The geologic evidence of accretion in continental plates appears to be yet more evidence of an old earth and against any global flood.

Thanks for the tip everyone involved. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by edge, posted 05-12-2007 3:33 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-12-2007 5:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 32 of 38 (400315)
05-12-2007 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by anglagard
05-12-2007 3:49 AM


Re: Make That 101
Fundamental to this I find the existence of cratons on every major continental plate to be significant. Cratons are continental nuclei. And worldwide we find these in all continental plates. Moving away from the cratons the dates get younger. The original cratons (early continents) accumulated others to form supercontinents. These then broke apart, reformed, and broke apart again to form our world today.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2007 3:49 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 1163 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 33 of 38 (400438)
05-13-2007 8:03 PM


Thanks for the welcome Coragyps! As for the Grand Canyon, it has experienced much greater uplift than the Miss. hence the greater depth. And the canyons at St Helens were carved in a unique type of material, volcanic ash. Because it's unconsolidated, it has very little resistance to erosion. But the interlocking grains give it the strength to support a steep face. Some YECs have said that the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly in soft sediment, but just a quick look at Grand Canyon stratigraphy shows this is impossible. Grand Canyon has vertical cliffs in sandstone and gentle slopes in the shales, like most natural landscapes. But this is the opposite of what is seen in unconsloidated sediment. Anyone familiar with construction sites will know you can't dig a trench in wet sand. Wet sand won't hold a face for 5 minutes much less 5,000 years. Wet clay OTH has cohesion, and will hold a vertical face.
Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-13-2007 8:55 PM bdfoster has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 38 (400440)
05-13-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bdfoster
05-13-2007 8:03 PM


Glad you are here so let's put you to work
Really glad you dropped in cause we need your help. We have a thread where we are very slowly trying to explore the Grand canyon from the bottom up explaining each layer before moving to the next one.

Right now we are still in the basement, but I'd love for us to keep moving on. You can find it at Message 1.

We've made it to the Dox Formation. Can you help us climb to the next layer?

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bdfoster, posted 05-13-2007 8:03 PM bdfoster has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by bdfoster, posted 05-13-2007 9:15 PM jar has not yet responded

  
bdfoster
Member (Idle past 1163 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 35 of 38 (400441)
05-13-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
05-13-2007 8:55 PM


Re: Glad you are here so let's put you to work
Oh no! I don't want to work! Just kidding. That sounds like a great idea for a thread. I'm no expert on the Grand Canyon, and I'm sure I would learn more from a thread like that than I could ever contribute. I will definitely check it out. Thanks.
Brent
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-13-2007 8:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 36 of 38 (401613)
05-20-2007 10:40 PM


Somewhere in the past, I read of a deposit of red foramin ooze, 5000 feet thick, but can`t find the reference. One of Rachael Carson`s books, perhaps?
    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 37 of 38 (410923)
07-18-2007 12:30 AM


Bump d bump bump
Why do the flood geology threads around here quickly go dim. It was one of the reason I came here to start with.

Where are all the hotshot flood geologists? Is it the lack of flood evidence or is it the overly aggressive stance of the old time geologists that cause this lopsided response?

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Jazzns, posted 07-18-2007 11:55 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 195 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 38 of 38 (410988)
07-18-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by iceage
07-18-2007 12:30 AM


Re: Bump d bump bump
I think there are a number of factors influencing this.

1. The age of the earth "problem" is less important than the evolution "problem" to most creationists. I think that they would be much more willing to abandon the "Young Earth" part of their name then they would ever abandon their "Creationism" part. Biblical references to the age of the earth are vague but references to creation are not. Contradictory yes, but not vague.

2. It is much easier to fake your way through a conversation about evolution than it is about geology.

3. There are more opportunities to quote mine evolutionists.

4. The geologic evidence is MUCH harder to refute than biological because it is MUCH more simple. The geologic history of the earth is extrodinarily well understood. The evolutionary history seem to be not as much although there is much more to understand there.

5. There are seemingly many more avenues of evolution to discuss on the layman's level. Most people at least know ABOUT genetics (i.e. that genes exist and they are the method of herdity, etc). Then there are all sorts of psudo-philoshopical ways to "refute" evolution. You catch my drift?

6. The geologic evidence is much more likely to strike congnitive dissonance in YECs. There are so many "silver-bullet" evidences against flood geology that really the only thing they can do to avoid their head exploding is to walk away. That is not to say that there are also silver bullets for anti-evolution, the problem is that they seem to be much more difficult for a layman to understand if they are not willing to put in the effort.

As an example, a silver bullet for a flood is evaporites. That is very simple to understand and YECs CONSTANTLY run away from that argument because they simply cannot deal with it. It can be described in full detail in a few sentences without any confusion.

A silver bullet in the argument against evolution is easily the evidence derived from ERVs. The problem with this is that it takes quite a bit of effort just to explain the facts in enough detail to present the case properly. That effort is often lost because YECs are loath to actually READ anything in the first place. If this were not true, they would not be YECs as it requires ignorance of fact to be a YEC to begin with. Most of the time at least.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 12:30 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014