|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| dwise1, Huntard, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, PaulK, ramoss, rbp, Tempe 12ft Chicken (8 members, 104 visitors)
| ||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Geological question. (Sea floor sediment accumulation) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
anglagard Member  Posts: 1996 From: Big Spring, TX, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thanks for the tip everyone involved. :)
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Lithodid-Man Member  Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
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"
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
bdfoster Member (Idle past 825 days)  Posts: 60 From: Riverside, CA Joined: |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member  Posts: 23384 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
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
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
bdfoster Member (Idle past 825 days) Posts: 60 From: Riverside, CA Joined: |
Brent
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Nighttrain Member Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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 1861 days)  Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
Jazzns Member  Posts: 2653 From: A Better America Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
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)
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
