Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

Why do you think Genesis demands a young earth and that any other interpretation is doing alot of wrangling? Do you think the word "day" always has to mean 24 hours? 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?

So you think the writer of Genesis 1 thought all of creation was created in 6 literal 24 hour days? 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.

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. 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.

So, you are saying that moses, who was inspired by God, deliberately lied when he wrote that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I'm sorry, but I don't worship a God who would purposefully and deceitfully lie like that.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you just posted coragyps. I am sure faith is as well. As such, I certainly would not be able to answer you.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

It appears the bottom four layers are gradually tilting. No problem there, but you have to have the top layers tilting as well and that isn't what the diagram is showing. You would have to have the top layers of the tilting bottom to slide to the left and shorten with no effect on the layer above them they are in contact with. What possible mechanism could bring this type of behavior into being faith?

How did the folded part in contact with the upper layer erode without the upper layers eroding away as well?Layers do tilt an not fold by the way. They do this by the process of normal faulting when the crust is being pulled apart by tension.

Do you understand the difference between pushing two things together and pulling two things apart? Normal faulting happens with the latter. I use the word "normal" as a technical geological term and not "normal" as in normal person. There are normal, reverse, thrust and a few other types of faults that don't come to mind right now. When the crust of the earth is pulled apart from two sides, there is no folding involved, only faulting. Folding occurs when there are two forces pushing on the same area from opposite directions. When you smash two continents together, you get folding, and with further pressure, you get faulting of various kinds with thrust faulting being the most common. I may not know as much as professional geologists such as pressie, but you certainly cannot say I do not know what I am talking about.

Well, thats one more thing I wasn't aware of...drag folds. It makes sense though because of the resistance to a block of crust moving up or down a fault.

Rocks at the surface don't fold. Only rocks that are buried deep beneath the surface and are at the correct pressure and temperature, are able to fold.

From: Late Precambrian Sixtymile Formation and orogeny at top of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, northern Arizona1979, Elston, Donald ParkerUSGS Professional Paper: 1092The orogeny is what caused the tilting of the grand canyon supergroup that lies unconformably over the vishnu schist and zoroaster granite.The orogeny is what stopped the deposition of the grand canyon supergroup. Why?, because when an area of land that was once low lying is raised to a position much higher in elevation than its surroundings, it starts to erode rather than receive deposition. Do we see any deposition on top of mount everest? no.If a land area is at a sufficiently high elevation above its immediate surroundings for a very long time, it will also erode for a very long time. The reason for the great unconformity is the fact that the area of the grand canyon was raised to great heights during the above mentioned orogeny and it took about 1.2 billion years for it to erode down to an elevation that was lower than it surroundings. When it reached that low elevation, it started receiving deposited sediments again from higher elevated landmasses.Can a year long global flood deposit sediments, raise them to great heights, tilt them, erode them, and then start depositing sediments on them while neglecting to do the same thing to rest of the world at the same time?Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

What party line? All I am doing is laying out the facts for you. If I were to tell you that air is made of nitrogen and oxygen and argon and appears blue when sunlight shines through it, would you tell me that I was giving you the party line?

Why don't you try telling me what isn't a fact from what I said and can you prove it?

If orogenies are pure fantasy, then why don't you tell me what you think an orogeny is? After you have done that, why don't you tell me what can cause tilting like that seen in the grand canyon other than an orogeny?

Is it God's fault that the bible is confusing? Is most of it really all that confusing anyway? It appears to be confusing only when you compare one verse with another verse. Can man really hope to perfectly understand a book written by an all powerful, all knowing, eternally existing being? Perhaps the bible was never meant to be PERFECTLY understood in every single detail. We can understand a biology textbook in every detail. We can understand a physics book in every detail. Can we understand a person in every detail after he has written an autobiography? The answer is clearly no. The bible, in large part, is an autobiography of God. If we cannot understand perfectly human authors, what makes you think we can understand perfectly divine authors?As for the threatening part: Would you rather God not warn you ahead of time of future peril? What if the punishment that you perceive to be threatened with, is just what happens to an eternal being without the presence of a holy God? What do you want from God? Would you rather that he make you a temporal being instead of an eternal being? That can be done, and may just be what happens in the metaphorical lake of fire. After the lake of fire, your consciousness just may cease to exist. As an atheist, that is what you expect upon death anyway isn't it?