|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes there are a lot of people out there who read the Bible falsely. I read it the way the Protestant Reformers read it, Sola Scriptura and all that, the way the true believers down the centuries read it. Oh we don't perfectly agree on everything but taking Genesis literally is one thing the majority of us DO agree on. My evidence that my reading is the right way of reading it is this historical evidence. Thousands of preachers and Christian teachers I've heard and read have taught me how to read it.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have NO idea what you're talking about, bad arguments and so on, sorry, just your own rumination that's undecipherable to me.
I'd guess that rocks got tumbled and broken up in the Flood and that would have contributed to the sediments. Could have been the major source of them for all I know. The Bible suggests that the earth was extraordinarily fecund before the Flood and whatever the deep and fertile soils were made up of could be another contribution. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
That's not how the Holy Spirit works in inspiring people. He doesn't interfere with their personalities, He makes use of their personalities and knowledge. He indwells them and guides them through their own human spirit which is dead in fallen humanity but "quickened" at salvation. It's hard to explain how the person works in cooperation with the Spirit and isn't forced. It requires the person's whole devotion to the Lord of course. Yes it's mysterious and you probably have to be a believer to have any sense of it at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Please provide the codebook to determine when to read it in the many different ways. I believe you'll find the literary modes of the Bible discussed in the following articles on how to read the Bible from the Reformed point of view, particularly the first one: Search | Monergism The Spurgeon Library | Page not found Page not found - Presbyterian-Reformed Ministries International Some books on the subject to demontrate that this is a very big topic:Search | Monergism He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, Tangle, I was not thinking that rocks would dissolve, never said anything to imply that as far as I know so I don't know where the idea came from.
The context of the quote you give was my comment that I think layers of the Grand Canyon would re-dissolve if the Flood repeated itself. It was an afterthoght. The main thing I said was that the land mass would have been the source of the sediments and what I was thinking of is what would happen NOW if it rained forty days and nights and the ocean covered the land area. I envision a prodigious amount of dissolved stuff, starting with mud, mud and more mud. Not rock, dissolved stuff, loose enough stuff to dissolve. I have thought that some rock would be pulverized by tumbling in the Flood and also become sediment, but that is again more of an afterthought. Again the main idea involves envisioning what would happen if the entire world NOW were rained on for forty nights and days and then covered with water for months. Not the paltry effects so many here seem to insist on despite all the evidence of the enormous destruction that occurs even in local floods.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
It’s an ordinary English word that says well enough what I mean; there’s no need to insist on a particular technical meaning of it.
Dictionary definitions that apply to my use of the word (they even include the meaning "liquefy" you seem to think should require another word): Dissolve Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
DISSOLVE transitive verbb : to separate into component parts : disintegrate 2a : to cause to pass into solution b : melt, liquefy intransitive verb1a : to become dissipated or decomposed b : break up, disperse 2a : to become fluid : melt b : to pass into solution Origin of DISSOLVEMiddle English, from Latin dissolvere, from dis- + solvere to loosen Synonyms: dematerialize, disappear, evanesce, evaporate, fade, flee, fly, go (away), melt, sink, vanish Edited by Faith, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I emphasize "the entire geological column" in opposition to the notions that locate the Flood in a particular layer -- or "time period" as most geologists think of it. The point is that it either made all the layers or it made none, it wouldn't have made a particular layer in the middle of the stack when all the other layers were obviously (yes, I think so) formed by identical means. And as I believe I also said, I think of the Grand Canyon stack as the best representative of it, recognizing however that various versions of the stack occur around the world. That's all I mean, I don't get into DEFINING it beyond that.
Try imagining a worldwide Flood. There's nothing magical about it.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km). What do you mean "show a burial depth of" that many kilometers when you have found them within a layer of the geological column -- the layers, the strata -- which as far as I am aware doesn't go anywhere near that deep? You mean apparently that they had to have been FORMED at that depth and then somehow got into the higher layer and I just keep wanting to say "So?"
How do I work out which are a part of the 'geological column' and which aren't? You are hanging a lot on how they were formed which apparently means to you that they COULDN'T be in the layer, but there they are. How do YOU explain their being there if there are dire consequences to their getting there which you suggested earlier? And as far as I know they don't occur in the Grand Canyon. If they did my first thought would be that they got carried there along with the rest of the stuff in that layer within a current of the Flood waters. That is, they pre-existed the Flood and merely got moved from one place to another.
Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column. That was my understanding of your saying they could only be formed at an enormous depth, far far below any of the strata as I understand it. I still haven't grasped your question because it seems to me that if they are found on the surface at all you have just as much of a problem explaining that as a Floodist would.
Are high grade schists? What about shales? Are tilted layers part of the column? What are the determining factors for what is in or out? My argument about the Flood is almost completely based on the Grand Canyon area, which I think can be argued to show that it had to have been formed in the Flood, first the laying down of the strata which cover hundreds of square miles horizontally, and originally reached at least two miles deep; then the cutting of the canyon and other events that occurred to bring that about. We haven't even touched on the various aspects of that favorite argument of mine because of all the objections and changes of subject that have been raised here. Not that I'm complaining, that's just the name of the game, the point is only that I've worked on this for some time, it's not just a wild guess. In other words I'm not arguing about the entire field of geology, I'm focused on one area I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about. Jar asked me about the Vishnu schist and I do have an explanation for that based on my understanding of the geological history of the canyon from a Floodist point of view. If you're going to generalize about "high grade schists" in any other context I don't see the relevance to my particular focus. There are shales among the layers, lithified clay. The layers are all lithified sediments of one sort or another, clay/shale, sand/sandstone, calcium carbonate grains, including sea organisms/limestone, (even across the world the coccoliths of the chalk cliffs of Dover are also part of the geological column, which are also apparently a layer between other layers -- layering itself is what suggests deposition by the Flood). So I understand all the various sediments, clays, sands, grains and whatnot to have been deposited by the Flood waters, all of them, then lithified over time, much of that due to the weight of the stack above. Schists undergo more than mere lithification, it takes heat to form them. I don't see any schists higher than the Vishnu schist in the Grand Canyon which I've explained in terms of the heat and force from the volcano that erupted beneath the canyon after all the layers were in place, in conjunction with the weight of the whole column above, at least two miles in depth before the canyon was cut, and most likely tectonic force as well, which creationists believe occurred in conjunction with the Flood, even in conjunction with the volcanic activity which is also understood to have occurred in conjunction with the Flood. By tilting, if you mean the unconformity at the bottom of the canyon, that can be explained as the result of the force from the volcano, perhaps in conjunction with a lateral tectonic force, resisted by the weight of the column above, which I've argued at length on my blog using a really nice illustration from Lyell to make the point. The canyon is known for its relatively neatly horizontal strata overall except for a mild sloping. Tilting occurs more in other places the column occurs. Tectonic effect usually, or volcanism in some cases. Oh, and also, the scientist Prothero in the Road Trip film seemed to think the Horseshoe Bend curve of the river would defeat the idea of the Flood but that's really silly. Such meanders are a natural formation involving differences between speed and pressure between the flow at the edges of the water, which could just as well occur after the receding Flood waters had settled down to the river running through the canyon. If I found this kind of rock in a layer as you suggest, what SHOULD I think? It's certainly not 45 km deep, so you tell ME how it got there.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I'm not a scientist, Coyote, and although I've done a lot of reading in order to grasp the concepts involved in the arguments that most preoccupy me, I'll never meet your standard, so if nonscientists are not going to be allowed to use ordinary English to convey perfectly reasonable ideas about the physical world, that even scientists understand, who presumably also speak ordinary English, we should be told we aren't allowed to post here at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The miscommunication here is absolutely beyond my ability to figure out, so I have to abandon this discussion completely. You are making no sense whatever.
What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it and all the rank-pulling you do isn't going to change my mind, and that's all you're doing, pulling rank. I know a great deal about genetics, especially population genetics, I'd just like to get a better picture of some specifics about DNA, I'd like to be able to visualize things like "junk DNA" for instance. I've already shown more than once in this thread that I understand how schist is formed, but you either missed that or just like to pretend I haven't. I've also been following Dr. A's geology course since its beginning and commented on it at my blog, also mentioned it here more than once. I'd already read up on the material he's covered to this point, years ago by now, but I think he's done a very good job of pulling it all together and I've enjoyed it. Of course I'm going to have arguments with his old earth stuff but most of the material hasn't even touched on that, as it really doesn't have to. So you can stop your rank-pulling on that score too. Creationists certainly do take into account tectonics and erosion, a lot of the arguments for the Flood make much of both. I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, I actively reject the ridiculous time scale explanation of how a stack of sediments formed that so clearly all formed by the same physical mechanisms and clearly all demonstrate NO differences OF CONDITION among them that would suggest a difference in age from bottom to top. AND the fact that NO tectonic and other disturbances occurred to the strata until the canyon itself was cut demonstrates that the time scale explanations are idiocy. Establishment based idiocy. Confirmed paradigm-dogmatic idiocy. You guys don't even LOOK at the canyon, you impose a pile of prejudices on it so that you can't even see the thing as it is. You can't even see the fact that the canyon didn't get cut until the whole thing was in place, after, what, a few BILLION years according to your ridiculous theory when NO canyons were cut and no other disturbance occurred? The amazing thing is that you can't see the forest for the trees of your idiotic theory. Since there are no eclogites in the Grand Canyon I feel no obligation to try to penetrate your utterly befogged form of "communication." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I include all the LAYERS, the LAYERS, the STRATA, all over the earth. Good grief. That is NOT the problem with this ridiculous argument. I already said my answer: If it's in a layer then I assume it pre-existed the Flood in its current condition and was transported along with the other contents of that layer to its current location.
He is making NO sense at all. If it's found IN A LAYER then it WAS THERE when the layer was deposited. What on earth is he thinking about the 4300 years SINCE the Flood? If it was laid down in the Flood it was already there at the end of the Flood, the subsequent years have nothing to do with it. If it was there in whatever "time" period he assigns to that layer then it's been there since that "time" period occurred. This argument is just senseless gobbledygook.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know, all I know is that's what the Reformed hermeneutic is called. The Dispensationalist hermeneutic is called the Literal-Historical-Grammatical method. I've only recently begun listening to a course on hermeneutics myself. I just figured those sites would explain that the Bible employs different literary modes for those who are stuck on the idea that everybody thinks it must be read "literally" in some wackily literal sense of "literal."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : grammarHe who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I suggested no such thing but apparently was misread to say that because of some different idea about the extent of the geological column. As I've understood it there are no STRATA that deep in the earth. The strata start somewhere on the surface of the continents in my understanding. Perhaps you can change my view of this.
I have no problem understanding what rocks are made of.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then read one of the others. (All of the different systems I'm aware of aim to get at the meaning of the original authors, that's not going to be a difference among them.) AGAIN, I was ONLY trying to find a reference to demonstrate that the Bible employs different literary modes. Period.
I looked at the link and it seems that it does start with the conclusion rather than the argument. Not a good place to start. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Perhaps it would be clearer and more accurate if you just said all sedimentary rock ? The Flood isn't going to lay down igneous rock, whether surface deposits (many of which are not laid down under water anyway) or intrusions (which have to come after the layers they cut into, by definition). OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column? If so, why insist on the different term? Yes I know igneous rock was formed AFTER the strata were laid down, that's a major part of my argument as a matter of fact. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024