Rahvin writes:
Faith writes:
But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.
But it's not, as has been well-demonstrated in this thread. For instance: how does a Flood transport a complete nest of eggs, completely intact, to deposit it in sediment?
First off, you aren't talking about the Grand Canyon. What I said is that the Flood-based geology OF THE GRAND CANYON is pretty well worked out except for the details and that is true. I don't know how you guys justify bringing in completely extraneous material and concluding you've defeated an argument about something entirely different on that basis. I barely get one thing described and other things are being thrown at me I'm supposed to answer while meanwhile I can't get anyone to actually think about what I've already said. It's quite possible for the explanation of the mechanics of the formation of the Canyon to make sense on its own. Yeah yeah yeah and all that.
As for the nest and eggs, why do we have to be able to explain EVERYTHING before we can explain ANYTHING? Talk about moving goal posts. But you don't know what happened in the Flood -- and from what I gather there's a strange inability to even begin to imagine what such a global event would have done on the part of my opponents -- and ALL this is is speculation you know, just as all the official sciences about prehistoric time are also nothing but speculation (how I wish someone on your side would recognize that fact). BUT I have no problem imagining exceptions and flukes in such an event. If a nest survived intact, conditions in the Flood somehow allowed that to happen and perhaps this has been demonstrated somewhere already or will be soon.
How do footprints wind up in between layers that were supposed to have been laid down in the Flood?
I believe I suggested back there somewhere that it had to be that the layers were laid down over some period of time so that there were still living things running around on the surface of some of them, but since the footprints are so well preserved it's quite clear that the next layer came in quite rapidly to fill them in.
Look, this whole debate COULD be most reasonably understood by tallying up good solid arguments on one side and reserving unanswered facts on the other. You can't defeat a whole system of thought with a few contrary facts, and certainly your own system of thought has a ton of those against it that you don't bother about.
Why isn't everything in the Flood-deposited layers sorted by buoyancy, like what happens in literally every other case where matter is deposited over a brief period of time from standing water
You cannot just apply what happens in a local flood to this flood, or standing water as you have observed it, can't just apply it without further considerations anyway. Morris had an elaborate understanding of how water in such a quantity as the worldwide Flood would have done the sorting on principles of hydraulics. From what I've read about the nature of the oceans, they DO move things around, transport them long distances, they are crisscrossed with currents at various depths that carry things, waves also carry things, and they are also divided into layers according to differences in temperature the deeper you go.
These are reasonable considerations in relation to such a Flood. There is no way to replicate the conditions of such a Flood so reasonable considerations are a good start. Certainly you like your own speculations more than a creationist's so all we can do is argue which is more reasonable. I think yours are way too paltry to begin to account for what a worldwide Flood would have done, as are others here. I think the nature of oceans as I've mentioned above probably goes a lot further to explain what would have happened than anything based on local floods and anything we could ever have observed ourselves.
The "other creationists, including GEOLOGISTS" is just an appeal to a nameless authority - it doesn't lend your argument an ounce of credibility when your model simply cannot explain a particular set of observations.
It's meant to answer the accusation that I'm just making stuff up off the top of my head without any geological authority or background whatever. If I'm in accord with some actual geologists that ought to help answer that accusation, or even just in accord with creationist thinking, period. Steve Austin is a creationist geologist who has studied the nautiloid layer in the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon to show that it demonstrates catastrophic burial of those creatures. I also found Tas Walker's Biblical Geology site back up thread, and although I haven't had time to get back to it to be sure what he's arguing it looks like he's arguing the same basic Grand Canyon argument I've been arguing. And he's a geologist.
If your sources have worked out mechanisms to explain those observations, your job is then to relate those ideas to us - else all we see is your argument, refuted by an observation that falsifies your model.
Your argument does NOT falsify my model. Nothing anyone has said here has managed that. You change the subject and call that falsifying my model of the formation of the Grand Canyon. No, you have to think about the mechanics of its formation, a dinosaur nest is not going to refute it. You have objections from your own speculations, it's all a war of interpretation since there is no way to objectively establish any of this. I know you dispute that idea but it's one of the main things I've been trying to get across.
Please, you all accept juust about THE most utterly ridiculous bit of lore about the formation of the strata imaginable, the idea that you can find in a mere slab of rock, a flat slab of rock, evidence of whole former historical scenarios. You probe around in this rock, say limestone, which is already absurdly accepted as some kind of evidence of the "environment" of the time, and you find, oh, a bunch of marine life and you conclude that there was on that very spot once upon a fine fairy tale a sea in which such creatures lived. BUT IT'S FAR MORE REASONABLE FROM ITS OBVIOUS APPEARANCE, ITS CONDITION, ITS PRESENTATION TO THE NAKED EYE, TO SUGGEST THAT ROCK WAS MERELY DUMPED THERE AS A LAYER WITHIN A STACK OF LAYERS, A ROCK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A CERTAIN KIND OF SEDIMENTS CONTAINING MARINE LIFE THAT WAS PICKED UP IN THE FLOOD AND DEPOSITED THERE.
This is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and eventually all the sciences that have been buying into it should have to acknowledge this. In a ROCK you guys find fairy tales. You find, oh, a fern fossil in another rock and you allow yourselves to imagine whole tropical scenes for that "era" in "deep time" but IT'S ONLY A ROCK that was originally sediment that held some flora and probably fauna as well that came from a tropical location and got moved and dumped there. You come up with these scenarios as if the actual appearance of the rock means nothing.
Oh well. The hardest thing about this is getting you all to stop throwing your objections at my "model" before you've even grasped what the model is actually saying. Oh yeah, you'll say you KNOW what it's saying. No, you don't. All I get from you is these objections from out of the blue and no acknowledgment of anything in the argument I've actually presented.
Oh well. Way it goes.
Edited by Faith, : grammar
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.
™ Version 4.2
