Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 841 of 1896 (714920)
12-29-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 838 by Percy
12-29-2013 4:10 PM


Re: Another Summary
One doesn't have to "make up" damp rocks when one is discussing what would have happened during and after the Flood, it's a natural assumption, and I assume they WERE damp anyway, whatever that contributed or didn't contribute to anything, so you can drop that bit of accusation, thank you.
I have not been misreading the diagram. A slope is a slope I don't care how long a slope it is. I also don't care how hard or soft the rocks have to be to conform to it, I assumed damp but I DON'T CARE, IT ISN'T IMPORTANT. My main point has been that they were all in place when the tectonic and volcanic activity caused the uplift and the canyon and so on AND THAT IS TRUE AND VISIBLE ON THE DIAGRAM.
I see, so now you are agreeing with me about the order of things that nobody agreed about for a long time. Wasn't it you who suggested that the Claron layer was deposited AFTER the Hurricane fault occurred? Now it's impossible, all that can happen after uplift is erosion. Oh goody, shift and shift.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 4:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 5:10 PM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 842 of 1896 (714921)
12-29-2013 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by Faith
12-29-2013 2:38 PM


Another Question
My argument has been based all along on the fact of the huge disturbances that occurred in the canyon area after all the strata were in place. The supposed placidity lasted some 750 million years, only to be suddenly brought to an end ...
Yes, you are incredulous that this occurred, but the question is whether we should be incredulous, based on evidence of "huge disturbances" ... and the consensus appears to be no, there is no reason to be incredulous about long term benign levels of activity.
Faults occur where there is stress between plates, and if there is no stress there is no cause to expect faults occurring.
Again I direct you to:
Message 821: This is an interactive map of Quaternary earthquakes in the US:
Different colors represent different ages ...
Look at the Great Plains area -- N.Dakota, S.Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska -- an area much larger than the Colorado Plateau ... no fault zones
Zoom in on the Colorado Plateau & Grand Canyon ... many fault zones
The Great Plains would represent sedimentary deposition and large flat geography very similar to the layers of sedimentary deposits in the Colorado Plateau -- before uplift and tectonic stress build-up. ...
That much larger area has no fault lines and that means no disturbances in over 1.6 million years.
... The supposed placidity lasted some 750 million years, only to be suddenly brought to an end ...
And questions you need to answer is first is where 750 million years comes from and second what were the tectonic stresses during those years ... provide evidence that there was stress but no activity and you would have a conundrum.
But there is another issue here, which revolves again around your concept of "huge disturbances" and what qualifies.
The fault lines in the area of the Grand Canyon are shown on this map
And from the USGS map we know that some were <15,000 years ago (yellow), some were 15,000 to <130,000 years ago (green), some were 130,000 to <750,000 years ago (blue), and some were 750,000 to <1,600,000 years ago, and many of the younger colored ones show the recentest occurrence age rather than their oldest occurrence age.
... only to be suddenly brought to an end by all that tectonic and volcanic activity seen in the uplift over the canyon area, the cutting of the canyon into it, the stairs and canyons of the Grand Staircase to the north as well as the uplift there, and the magma dike at the end of the staircase that penetrates through all the strata to the very top where it's created a lava field, and the Hurricane fault that created the angular unconformity to the north of it, and so on.
All of which occurred over a long period of some 40 million to 70 million years for the canyon to form (depending on which study you pick) or longer (possible pre-canyon activity).
That doesn't seem to me to be a "sudden" occurrence at all, especially as a good part of it could have occurred well before then ... like the faults that recur along older fault lines, but I'm no expert here.
One of the issues for whether they would "qualify" for your disturbances is whether they can be observed across the canyon ... so if all the faults are side-slip faults with no change in elevation then they could move "huge" amounts but not meet your qualification for observation.
Likewise lack of observability does not mean that this did not happen. I just don't have the data to tell, nor do I feel I need to dig it out at this point because it's your argument to support not mine.
Of course there is also the activity that can be seen beneath the canyon as well, the Great Unconformity, the magma intrusions and so on, which are usually understood to have occurred BEFORE all the strata were laid down, long long long before. I rather think they occurred at the same time as those that clearly occurred afterward but either way you've got a lot of tectonic and volcanic activity in the region that supposedly DIDN'T happen at ALL for at least 750 million years.
Curiously 750 million years of placid deposition in the environmental conditions for the deposition of the sedimentary layers does not disturb me, but I don't think your numbers add up (wiki):
quote:
The major geologic exposures in the Grand Canyon range in age from the 2-billion-year-old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230M-year-old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. There is a gap of about a billion years between the 500M-year-old stratum and the level below it, which dates to about 1.5 billion years ago. This large unconformity indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.
Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone, which contains abundant geological evidence of aeolian sand dune deposition. Several parts of the Supai Group also were deposited in non—marine environments.
bold added for emphasis
Coconino is group number 3 and the Supai group is number 5, well up the walls of the canyon. Sand dunes would leave evidence in the patterns of grains in different sizes (wind sorted) that would be visible, but maybe not across the canyon.
Using the ages for the layers in the diagram I get a summary of the layers as follows:
LayerAgeNameunconformityComments
1270Kaibabtopcurrent erosion
2273Toroweap Formation
3275Coconino SandstoneSandunes
4280Hermit Foundation
5285-315Supai Groupsome terrestrial layers
6320Surprise Canyon Formationtop
7340Redwall Limestonetopcalcite and aragonite, shells
8385Temple Butte Formationtop
9505Muav Limestonetopcalcite and aragonite, shells
10515Bright Angel Shalefine particles11525Tapeats Sandstonebottom is Great Unconformity
12<740Sixtymile Formationtopsupergroup
13740-770Chuar grouptopsupergroup
14900Nankoweap Formationtopsupergroup
151100-1200Unkar Grouptopsupergroup
161680-1840Vishnu Shistbelow supergroup
17?Granitesbelow supergroup
18?Gneissbelow supergroup
From the top of the Great Unconformity to the current surface represents 525-270 = 255 million years not 750 million.
Each level represents time spent where level deposition would be normal.
Since then there was likely additional deposition that has subsequently eroded away.
You can see why I have trouble with your 750 million year number here ...
Now I suppose you can just assume that's just the way it happened, but that of course strikes ME as a cop-out. The fact of so much disturbance to the entire area happening after all the strata were laid down kind of suggests that any former placidity of hundreds of millions of years is an illusion. But I guess that's just me.
No, it would be a valid argument if you can show that there was tectonic stress in the area that should have caused the disturbances you are suggesting should have occurred. These things don't occur in cycles of a regular pattern, they are the result of tectonic stress.
If there was no stress there is no reason to expect faults to appear on their own.
Oh but you need to recognize also that there are some here who are challenging the very idea of all that placidity, claiming there was such activity but it just didn't get recorded on the cross sections. Dr. A and Rox at least are trying to make that point.
As do I Faith. Any side slip activity would not make it into your record, so we don't know from just looking across the canyon whether such activity occurred or not.
There are lots of lesser disturbances that you choose to ignore, ones that show periods of erosion and periods of surface life.
The Grand Canyon is just a small area and is really just a cross-section taken along the river course -- it doesn't represent the activity of the whole area. The only thing it represents well is the deposition of layers of sediment in a large geological column in several different periods of deposition.
But I have another question for you:
Why was the Grand Canyon location cut by flood waters when land to the north and south are lower at the top of the ridge and lower than the rim of the canyon such that they would form similar courses for the water to run west to the sea ... why are there no great canyons in these locations? This map again
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/
allows you to move around and zoom in and out, it shows elevations with color shading with light green lower than medium green, (the canyon is a darker green).
There is a lower elevation in the ridge south of the canyon between Flagstaff and the south rim, and there is a lower elevation in the ridge north of the canyon where hwy 89 crosses the ridge on the way from Page Arizona to Kanab Utah.
Instead of taking either of these routes the Grand Canyon cuts across two (2) ridges at higher elevations.
If this was flood drainage should not there be canyons of equal size or greater in these locations???
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : piclinks

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 843 of 1896 (714922)
12-29-2013 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 842 by RAZD
12-29-2013 4:57 PM


Re: Another Question
Sure, you can imagine into fact anything you like, RAZD, including hundreds of millions of years of no tectonic activity. Fine, that takes care of my argument right there. No need to continue.
I started talking about "huge" and "large scale" disturbances to differentiate between the INVISIBLE erosion that everybody tries to say exists, and the VISIBLE tectonic and volcanic disturbances. Doesn't matter what I say or why somebody will make up something to accuse me of.
AND THE 750 MILLION YEARS WAS THE NUMBER DR. A GAVE FOR THE TIME TO BUILD THE STRATA FROM THE TAPEATS UP. I'D been SAYING A BILLION YEARS BUT THAT INCLUDES THE FORMATIONS BENEATH THE CANYONS. BUT YOU MISSED ALL THAT AND JUST WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING, ANYTHING.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 4:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 6:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 851 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 6:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 844 of 1896 (714923)
12-29-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
12-29-2013 4:25 PM


Re: Another Summary
Faith writes:
One doesn't have to "make up" damp rocks when one is discussing what would have happened during and after the Flood, it's a natural assumption,...
It could only be a "natural assumption" for someone incredibly ignorant, in the same way a child might believe it possible to be carried off by a bunch of balloons.
If all it really took to create rock was to compress a slurry of some material like sand or clay or limestone and then let it dry out, then there'd be a huge industry creating synthetic rock. But there's no such thing as damp rock, and no such thing as drying out damp rock. In addition to great pressure it takes time to create sedimentary rock, and that's why there's no synthetic rock industry.
I have not been misreading the diagram. A slope is a slope I don't care how long a slope it is.
I had a feeling that the explanation about the different coordinates being at different scales would go right over your head, and I see that that's the case. RAZD's compressed diagram didn't make things clear to you, I guess. I don't think he compressed it 30-to-1 though - looked a bit short of that.
I see, so now you are agreeing with me about the order of things that nobody agreed about for a long time. Wasn't it you who suggested that the Claron layer was deposited AFTER the Hurricane fault occurred? Now it's impossible, all that can happen after uplift is erosion. Oh goody, shift and shift.
I have no idea what you're talking about now. I said nothing about the Hurricane fault and neither did you in your message. What you did say that I quoted was that, "Any sedimentary layer being laid down after those events would not have conformed to the new slopes no matter how many miles in length, they would have laid themselves out most nicely horizontally...etc...", and that's what I commented about. Obviously an uplifted region cannot be an area of net deposition.
It's a mystery why you believe it so important for God to work his will without violating natural laws, but given that's the course you've chosen don't you think you should learn something about these natural laws, develop more of an intuitive feel for them, so that you stop inventing so many physically impossible scenarios? And when you can't figure out a natural solution, instead of putting your ignorance on display just say, "It's a miracle!"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 4:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 847 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 845 of 1896 (714924)
12-29-2013 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by roxrkool
12-29-2013 3:07 PM


Re: Angular Unconformities
I've argued this many times here before and don't want to get into it again now. I posted that because the diagram itself shows that the tilting occurred while the Claron and the lava field above it were already there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by roxrkool, posted 12-29-2013 3:07 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 5:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 849 by roxrkool, posted 12-29-2013 6:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 846 of 1896 (714925)
12-29-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:13 PM


Re: Angular Unconformities
Faith writes:
I've argued this many times here before and don't want to get into it again now.
Of course you don't want to get into it. Whenever your understanding stumbles forward enough for you to understand that an issue *is* actually important to your case, you abandon it. You didn't have any answers on these issues then, and you don't now. Try sticking with it for once instead of running away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:13 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by dwise1, posted 12-29-2013 6:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 847 of 1896 (714926)
12-29-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Percy
12-29-2013 5:10 PM


FINAL SUMMARY
What's impossible is that idiotic idea that rocks represent landscapes that represent times on the earth.
But the Flood is the most natural explanation for layered rocks of different sediments with dead things inside them. The order of things appears to be that the layers were laid down, then tectonic movement which caused vulcanism and earthquakes and faulting and uplift and the works came fairly soon afterward, and so did The Great Unconformity which I believe was caused by lateral force tilting and pushing strata beneath a very deep and heavy stack of strata that were already in place, and the granite and the schist were caused by the magma from beneath at the same time. They've had over four thousand years to come to their present form.
I know very little about conventional Old Earth Geology, the names of the supposed eras and all that and I don't want to know more, it's obviously just an elaborate fantasy into which a lot of genuine science is forced to fit, too bad.
I could be wrong about HOW various things happened concerning the Flood, but not about the Flood itself. In any case I think the scenario I've been pursuing is a pretty good one and that a great deal of it has been shown to be supported by actual evidence. Of course any evidence can be turned to almost any purpose when it comes to speculations about the past, all it takes is a good imagination, or even a bad one for that matter.
Oh and about that pressure and heat causing the rocks to be pliable, these rocks were VERY WET, which I would think might make a difference in the temperature and therefore the pliability based on heat, not that it matters anyway of course.
NOW I'D REALLY LIKE TO LEAVE THIS PLACE WHICH I EVEN WANTEDE TO DO AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD.
DO have a great New Year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 5:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by roxrkool, posted 12-29-2013 6:47 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 853 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2013 8:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 855 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 8:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 856 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2013 9:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(5)
Message 848 of 1896 (714927)
12-29-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 846 by Percy
12-29-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Angular Unconformities
Of course you don't want to get into it. Whenever your understanding stumbles forward enough for you to understand that an issue *is* actually important to your case, you abandon it.
Watching Faith at work reminds me of a science fiction novel from the late 1960's, Macroscope. The basic premise was the discovery of a new particle and of interstellar communications using that particle. There was one message, The Message, that would teach the viewer all kinds of advanced technology, but laid atop The Message was another message, The Destroyer, that would destroy the mind of the viewer as soon as he started to understand The Message. The group of protagonists were able to obtain that protected technology by having the least bright among them, Archer, view The Message without understanding it and then he would tell the others who could understand it and make use of it. Thus Archer had to repeatedly walk the very narrow tightrope between watching the Message and understanding it.
That is exactly what we see so many creationists doing as they have to learn enough science to try to bolster their claims and arguments while at the same time keep from understanding it since to do so would destroy their faith, as we have seen happen to so many creationists (eg, scienceishonesty, whose topic had spawned this one).
Faith admits that she is not here to learn anything. Of course she isn't, because if she were to actually learn something about geology then she would see that her ideas are wrong. And since her theology holds her faith hostage to those ideas, actually learning would amount to spiritual suicide, according to her theology.
I'm quite certain that Faith will keep her own faith safe, shielded by her armor of ignorance and her vigilance in maintaining that ignorance. And most creationists will likewise be able to maintain their protective ignorance, but in their case they do so by not even trying to puzzle any of it out. But many creationists will not succeed, especially the ones raised on "creation science", because they will actually believe it and will not know when to look away and when to keep themselves from understanding. The figures we see from the evangelical community itself is that 65% to 80% of those raised in the faith will leave it.
So Faith is one of a relatively small segment of the creationist community in that she is trying to think through how the Flood could have done everything she believes that it did and yet have done so through naturalistic processes -- that restriction in itself makes absolutely no sense; in a religion based on miracles, why arbitrarily rule out miracles? In order to make her case, she needs to learn everything she can about geology and the physics involved in geology. But by learning that, she will find that the case she is trying to make is groundless and just plain wrong.
She is walking that tightrope between The Message and The Destroyer. I do not at all envy the position she places herself into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Percy, posted 12-29-2013 5:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 849 of 1896 (714928)
12-29-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:13 PM


Re: Angular Unconformities
Well you brought it up first. I simply replied by asking for you to describe how such a thing would even be possible. If you didn't want to discuss it, perhaps YOU should not have posted it in the first place.
I figure at this point, you're pretty much obligated to discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 850 of 1896 (714929)
12-29-2013 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:06 PM


Re: Another Question
AND THE 750 MILLION YEARS WAS THE NUMBER DR. A GAVE FOR THE TIME TO BUILD THE STRATA FROM THE TAPEATS UP. I'D been SAYING A BILLION YEARS BUT THAT INCLUDES THE FORMATIONS BENEATH THE CANYONS. BUT YOU MISSED ALL THAT AND JUST WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING, ANYTHING.
So you would agree that the dates shown for these layers means deposition from 525 mya to 270 mya? Note while you were busy replying I edited my post to sneak this table in
Using the ages for the layers in the diagram I get a summary of the layers as follows:
LayerAgeNameunconformityComments
1270Kaibabtopcurrent erosion
2273Toroweap Formation
3275Coconino SandstoneSandunes
4280Hermit Foundation
5285-315Supai Groupsome terrestrial layers
6320Surprise Canyon Formationtop
7340Redwall Limestonetopcalcite and aragonite, shells
8385Temple Butte Formationtop
9505Muav Limestonetopcalcite and aragonite, shells
10515Bright Angel Shalefine particles11525Tapeats Sandstonebottom is Great Unconformity
12<740Sixtymile Formationtopsupergroup
13740-770Chuar grouptopsupergroup
14900Nankoweap Formationtopsupergroup
151100-1200Unkar Grouptopsupergroup
161680-1840Vishnu Shistbelow supergroup
17?Granitesbelow supergroup
18?Gneissbelow supergroup
From the top of the Great Unconformity to the current surface represents 525-270 = 255 million years not 750 million.
Each level represents time spent where level deposition would be normal.
Since then there was likely additional deposition that has subsequently eroded away.
You can see why I have trouble with your 750 million year number here ...
That summarizes the diagram in wiki. I'll be glad to say ~250 million years of deposition without significant differential vertical displacement or major drainage channels (which would not form underwater). That leaves the vertical up and down compared to sea level (which can be attributed to sea level change rather than ground), and then rising to it's current elevations (which is a pretty visible disturbance imho).
I started talking about "huge" and "large scale" disturbances to differentiate between the INVISIBLE erosion that everybody tries to say exists, and the VISIBLE tectonic and volcanic disturbances. Doesn't matter what I say or why somebody will make up something to accuse me of.
I know Faith -- the "INVISIBLE erosion" can't be seen across the canyon. You have to look at all the evidence, and that means getting up close and personal with the layers (that's what rock hounds and geologists do).
Sure, you can imagine into fact anything you like, RAZD, including hundreds of millions of years of no tectonic activity. Fine, that takes care of my argument right there. No need to continue.
But I don't need to imagine anything that is objective empirical evidence, all I need to do is look at it.
But when it comes to imagination, can you tell me ...
Why was the Grand Canyon location cut by flood waters when land to the north and south are lower at the top of the ridge and lower than the rim of the canyon such that they would form similar courses for the water to run west to the sea ... why are there no great canyons in these locations? This map again
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/map/
allows you to move around and zoom in and out, it shows elevations with color shading with light green lower than medium green, (the canyon is a darker green).
There is a lower elevation in the ridge south of the canyon between Flagstaff and the south rim, and there is a lower elevation in the ridge north of the canyon where hwy 89 crosses the ridge on the way from Page Arizona to Kanab Utah.
Instead of taking either of these routes the Grand Canyon cuts across two (2) ridges at higher elevations.
If this was flood drainage should not there be canyons of equal size or greater in these locations???
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : piclink

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 851 of 1896 (714930)
12-29-2013 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:06 PM


not quite
AND THE 750 MILLION YEARS WAS THE NUMBER DR. A GAVE FOR THE TIME TO BUILD THE STRATA FROM THE TAPEATS UP.
Message 570 Dr A: No they didn't. There's only about 750 million years between the Grand Canyon Orogeny and the Laramide Orogeny. Three-quarters is less than two, I counted.
Not the same thing
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 852 of 1896 (714931)
12-29-2013 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:31 PM


Re: FINAL SUMMARY
What's impossible is that idiotic idea that rocks represent landscapes that represent times on the earth.
Unfortunately for you, that "idiotic idea" has a mountain of evidence to support it and predictive abilities so powerful that we apply them with great success to find oil, gas, mineral deposits, fossils, etc. In the meantime, Creationists are still arguing about where to place the start of the flood. In fact, it's been nearly 2000 years and you Creationists still have not been able to create a coherent and cogent model.
But the Flood is the most natural explanation for layered rocks of different sediments with dead things inside them. The order of things appears to be that the layers were laid down, then tectonic movement which caused vulcanism and earthquakes and faulting and uplift and the works came fairly soon afterward, and so did The Great Unconformity which I believe was caused by lateral force tilting and pushing strata beneath a very deep and heavy stack of strata that were already in place, and the granite and the schist were caused by the magma from beneath at the same time. They've had over four thousand years to come to their present form.
Four thousand years is not a long enough time period and this was so apparent three hundreds years ago, that James Hutton was able to figure it out. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. Out of pure, rock-headed stubbornness.
I know very little about conventional Old Earth Geology, the names of the supposed eras and all that and I don't want to know more, it's obviously just an elaborate fantasy into which a lot of genuine science is forced to fit, too bad.
It's clear you know very little and I'm very happy to see you admitting it. I think that the more you learn, the harder it is for you to continue the charade. That's why you often resort to exaggerated derision.
I could be wrong about HOW various things happened concerning the Flood, but not about the Flood itself. In any case I think the scenario I've been pursuing is a pretty good one and that a great deal of it has been shown to be supported by actual evidence. Of course any evidence can be turned to almost any purpose when it comes to speculations about the past, all it takes is a good imagination, or even a bad one for that matter.
You're wrong. So wrong it's silly to sit here day in and day out arguing. It's supported by nothing. Not even your Bible.
Oh and about that pressure and heat causing the rocks to be pliable, these rocks were VERY WET, which I would think might make a difference in the temperature and therefore the pliability based on heat, not that it matters anyway of course.
All it takes is stepping on beach sand to see how easily the water is squeezed out of the sediment. What makes you think the sediments will remain "very wet" once they are buried beneath thousands of feet of sediment? Think about it. It's not that hard. Plus, then you apply even a small amount of heat and drive off even more water. Sure, you're going to have some formational waters, but it will certainly not be "very wet." The water will move into areas of less pressure. Simple physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 853 of 1896 (714935)
12-29-2013 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:31 PM


Summary
OK, let's try to summarize all this.
---
According to Faith, if the rocks in the Grand Canyon were old, they would show signs of disturbance.
They do: for example the dike swarms, the Cardenas Lava, the Grand Canyon Orogeny, the Great Unconformity, the erosion of the Muav Formation, the erosion of the Surpise Canyon Formation, the erosion of the Redwall Limestone, the erosion of the Temple Butte formation, the erosion of the Coconino Sandstone, the Laramide Orogeny, the Uinkaret volcanic field, the formation and erosion of multiple volcanic dams, and the erosion of everything round the Grand Canyon above the Kaibab Limestone.
So she tries again. If the rocks were old, she says, they'd show signs of tectonic activity over the past 2 billion years.
These signs of tetonic activity include the dike swarms, the Cardenas Lava, the Grand Canyon Orogeny, the Laramide Orogeny, the Uinkaret volcanic field, etc.
So she takes another run at it. If the rocks were really old, she says, we should see evidence of tectonic events in between the two orogenies when there weren't any. (There were plenty of erosional events, hence her insistence that they should be tectonic; there is no intellectual principle underlying this constraint except that if she asked about subaerial erosion she wouldn't like the answer.)
So, she says, if the Earth was old, there'd have been more orogenies between the orogenies that actually happened. This is apparently based on a belief, plucked from the mystic chambers of Faith's ass, that orogenic events should be frequent and plentiful. She has never attempted to argue for this dogma, because, well, how could she?
In fact, all our knowledge of past orogenies, present orogenies, and the mechanisms underlying orogenies, tells us that we ought to expect vast periods of time to pass between two orogenies occurring in the same place.
This I explained at length a few posts back. A short summary: Orogenies happen at converging boundaries of tectonic plates, which is why they are rare at any given time (such as the present). In order for orogeny to hit the same place twice, it nears to be near a converging boundary, then stop being near ac onverging boundary, then be near a converging boundary again. These things take time because (as direct measurement reveals) continents don't move very fast; and more time because nature isn't actually trying to arrange for orogenies to occur repeatedly in the same place.
---
These facts deal with the bulk of Faith's nonsense. The other shot she has in her arsenal is not even an argument, merely an assertion that it is "STUPID" and "ridiculous" and "idiotic" to conclude that the sediments in the rocks are relics of their depositional environments.
But she is unable to point out the element of the ridiculous, because, of course, it isn't there. For we observe:
* Sediment is deposited in many (not all) environments.
* The forms in which it is deposited are characteristic of the environments in which it is deposited.
* This sediment necessarily builds up from the bottom to the top, so that the lower sediment is also prior in time.
* A sample of the flora and fauna of the environment are buried in the sediment as it accumulates.
* The accumulated sediment therefore forms a series of snapshots of the environment in which it is deposited.
That's what we can observe. What Faith apparently finds "ridiculous", "STUPID", etc is the idea that these real observable processes occurred in the past: despite all the evidence being utterly consistent with the proposition that they did.
That's as much depth as I can go into on that topic, because Faith hasn't actually argued for her opinion, she's merely reiterated it.
---
Finally, people have pointed out a number of features in the rocks of the Grand Canyon region which are inimical to "flood geology".
So, for example, we find what looks exactly like aeolian sand dunes, for example in the Coconino Sandstone. Not only are these features absolutely characteristic of aeolian sand, but some (suh as the angle of repose) cannot possibly form underwater.
Again, we have the Cardenas Lava; being basalt, and pahoehoe to boot, it must have formed subaerially.
Again, the same can be said of much of the erosion and weathering, such as the karst erosion at the top of the Redwall limestone; it can't have occurred underwater, nor when overlain with rock or sediment.
(Much of the erosion Faith merely lies about, calling it "small" or "invisible" when it is clearly visible even across the canyon and is often a hundred meters or more in depth. I don't know who she's trying to fool. On another thread she has tried to explain away the erosion at the Great Unconformity, but her argument appears to violate the law of conservation of matter.)
Similarly we find footprints in terrestrial layers deposited after the evolution of land animals. Faith has some sort of half-baked idea about animals scampering over Flood deposits at low tide during the Flood, but she hasn't elaborated on it. Do these animals run right round the Earth once every twenty-four hours, or what?
But even this vague handwaving doesn't explain the consilience of the evidence. I should like to hear Faith explain why these footprints are found only in sediment identified on sedimentological grounds as terrestrial, and why the remains of land plants are also found in these layers, but none of the fish that the Flood apparently drowned in such numbers.
As for the law of faunal succession, well apparently Faith finds it a little too good, and objects that its perfect agreement with evolutionary theory is a strike against the Old Earth. I can make nothing of this. Faith, if you're reading this, no, we're not at all perturbed to find ourselves being 100% right about everything. We're used to it. What's your point?
Then there's the form of the canyon. Incised meanders, it has been pointed out, require a gentle current (or they wouldn't be meanders) operating over a long time (or they wouldn't be incised). Faith has replied by quoting a professional creationist apologist saying the contrary, but has not reproduced his chain of reasoning.
Similarly it has been pointed out to Faith that features such as arches and mushroom hoodoos must have been lithified before erosion, implying that the erosion would have taken a very long time.
One point against Flood geology is the absence of hydraulic sorting. What one would expect is boulders and other coarse rubble at the bottom, grading up to finer clasts. We see no such pattern.
Finally, the question has been raised: if the Grand Canyon was caused by a magic flood rather than the Colorado River, what's the Colorado River doing in the Grand Canyon? How did it know it was there for it to flow to, why didn't it get lost on the way?
These, then, are some of the points that have been raised against a Floodist explanation; I apologize to anyone if I've missed out their favorites, but it's been a long thread. And of course many more could be added that haven't been mentioned on this thread. (I'd have thrown in a few more myself, except that I was busy trying to get Faith to admit that the large and plainly visible features in the photographs I showed her were large and plainly visible. We know how that turned out.)
Faith's main one-size-fits-all response to these points has been to say that her one crappy argument that the rocks of the Grand Canyon have been undisturbed (apart from all the, y'know, disturbances) is so awesome wonderful that she doesn't need to think about all these pesky details, but she's sure it would be easy to explain them away if she could be bothered to make the effort.
---
It should be noted that Faith's one singularly crappy argument isn't an argument for the Flood at all. It's an argument against real processes and normal timeframes; it's not an argument for a magic flood as the cause of geology any more than it's an argument for magic rock fairies making strata out of pixie dust. I don't think she's actually come up with a single argument for the Flood to balance out the many arguments against it. I don't know if she ever will.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(7)
Message 854 of 1896 (714936)
12-29-2013 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by Faith
12-29-2013 1:57 AM


Re: HBD questions part 3 the timing
I'll give you my suspicion as to why: We are told to believe, to have faith. If any supposed knowledge contradicts God's word it is our obligation to contend against it rather than just give in and accept it just because it gets a grip on our fallible intellects.
"... our fallible intellects." Remember those words, because they are about to come back to haunt you.
You are told to believe. What? What your teachers had taught you. You know, the big people with fallible intellects (no, the haunting hasn't begun yet). But what happens when what you were taught turns out to be wrong? Yeah, right! Fallible humans with fallible intellects having taught a long chain of fallible humans with fallible intellects who must have gotten everything absolutely right. Fallible humans with fallible intellects who taught fallible you with your fallible intellect, who likewise have gotten everything infallibly and absolutely right. That demands human infallibility, which is something that I just cannot believe in.
Now, I do realize that your choice to believe those things is a matter of faith and I do recognize the role and value of faith in most matters. But when matters of faith clash headlong with reality and what one believes is demonstrably contrary-to-fact (as your claims about geology are), then I become very concerned with how one deals with that conflict.
There is also the question that I had raised before as to what "God's word" necessarily is. I fully realize that we do not agree on this question, but I believe that we can find some kind of common ground.
You would contend that "God's word" would be your own particular interpretation of the King James Version of the Bible. Since I cannot believe in human infallibility, I see the ancient writings, their transcriptions, their compilations, their translations (since you also have some language training, you should know that all translations are acts of interpretation), their interpretations, the doctrines based on those interpretations, the understanding of those doctrines, all by fallible humans with fallible intellects for what they are: certainly not the Word of God, but rather a compilation of Man's thoughts regarding God (which can be of great value in and of itself).
I am certain that the two of us will forever disagree about the status of the Bible and whether it can truly be regarded as the Word of God. This is a known point of disagreement between us, so now let's look for a point of agreement.

America On-Line (AOL) was one of the pioneers who brought the Internet to the average user; until then, you pretty much needed to be part of an organization, government or educational or whatever, to be able to get an account. AOL also offered its members the ability to post their own web-sites; that is how I first built my own site. And then one day AOL suddenly went out of the web-hosting business.
One highly pertinent site on AOL was posted by George H. Birkett circa 2000. He was a grandfather and a devout Christian. After all our sites were taken down by AOL, I never found his site again, leading me to believe that he never re-posted it. Google'ing his name, I find a number of obituary notices and similar genealogical postings, the most recent of which are from about seven years ago, so I assume that he has since passed on.
What is pertinent is what he wrote about The First Testament of God (obviously, broken links removed):
quote:
Do you get the picture? I'm just beginning to. I'm reading from a scripture revealed to me a couple years back, written by God in His own hand. It's all of God's creation and how His creation works and it teaches me more about God than any other source. It needed a name. I called it "The First Testament of God." I just read a new chapter. New for me. It was written long ago. It's titled: "Forever change."
Blending Faith with Reality
George H. Birkett
quote:
It is for us to discover, to ask questions that defy answers. My mind and your mind are just two of the infinite number of pages that compose The First Testament of God. There are billions of pages written in a language common to all and yet impossible for one human mind, impossible for the collective minds of all of time to absorb them all and it's still being written. The First Testament of God is all of God's creation and it is a work in progress.
Evolution ??
It is not something to be believed in.

quote:
Compare the scientific method to the first chapters of Genesis as an explanation for the existence of all things. Are these words a gathering and accumulation of evidence? Is there yet more to be gathered and accumulated? Does this (biblical) evidence have a behavior from which we can observe and thereby extrapolate truth? Are they irrefutable and consistent with new things we learn of our world and God's creation? Are "scientific creationists" willing to accept errors and new evidence that compels them to discard old ideas and theories for new knowledge and understanding?
There's the rub. Attempts to fit new evidence, new knowledge and understanding into these few scriptural passages entails re-writing the whole and only irrefutable words of God. We're in a bind. We 're forced to ignore "The First Testament of God." That, in my perception, means we must ignore our God gifted intellect. That is why we must choose between God and science.
The contest (creationism vs. evolution) demonstrates just how creationists cannot afford to reject old notions for new knowledge. Unlike the scientific method there is no provision for the failings of men. Such provision would imply a failing of God. And so, we must choose between God and science.
What are the real reasons for the creation / evolution dispute?
quote:
Yeah, there is one real big, big however. The more we learn the more we marvel at just how wondrous this creation thing is. There is so much to be learned and one of the things we have learned is that it is designed so that accidents WILL happen. Some accidents will work and others won't. Nothing is forever and all things will change and from what we can tell of this "accident" design change will be forever! Forever. It's so incredibly complex and yet in its way it's kind of simple. Now comes the biggest however, the biggest question: Who, What, designed creation to evolve? All the accumulated minds of science in all of accumulated time will NEVER be able to answer that question.
Now comes another reason for the dispute. Creationists know. . ., they will deny it but somewhere in their gut they know, that they have invested their faith and beliefs more in a finite book and less in an infinite creator God. They know their faith is built on a weak foundation and they are desperate to shore it up. It has to do with a mix mash of complex and often irrational man-made theologies.
So here, I suggest to those who espouse the six day creation theory that theologies were made by men and creation is the design of God.
One last reason for the dispute. The nasty one. "I'm right and you're wrong, even if I'm wrong." That is what their heart is saying in the midst of all their arguments. I hear them saying "I'm a true believer and you are not." Yeah, it's a "me is better than thee" kind of ego thing.


Faith, you are a creationist, are you not? Now, "creationist" does cover a lot of territory; I have read pages by knowledgeable evangelicals who decry how the "creation science" crowd has usurped that title to become YEC. But despite all the nit-picky detailed differences that YECs want to impose, the single definitive characteristic of all creationists is that they believe in Divine Creation; eg, For example, Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, PhD Biology, a foremost opponent of "creation science" and a Catholic (I see your knee jerking!), publicly declares himself a creationist by virtue of the fact that he believes in Divine Creation.
Faith, do you truly believe the world (and the universe, but I will allow us to leave that out of it if you wish) is the produce of Divine Creation? That is to say Divine Creation by your god? -- mind you and everybody else, I am assuming that we are talking about YHWH, AKA "The God of the Bible", and not some private little deity that you have devised -- sorry, but one thing I have learned about creationists over the past three decades is to not assume anything about them.
Faith, I am an atheist. I am also an agnostic, which is not the same thing. I am agnostic in that I do not believe that fallible human intellect can study nor understand the supernatural, which by definition is beyond our ability to comprehend or even to detect. You may believe otherwise, as I'm sure you do; just mark this up as yet another point where we disagree. My understanding is that agnosticism ("we just do not know for certain") is the only honest position to take with regard to the supernatural, which includes all human dealings with the gods. From honest agnosticism, you can either turn to an atheist position or to a theistic position in which you invent gods in order to deal with all kinds of unknowables. Or you could take the third alternative -- in every dilemma, there is always a third alternative.
Despite my own beliefs and yours, we must be able to agree on this one point: if you are a creationist, then you must believe in Divine Creation. Which means that you must believe that the world (and universe) is the way it is because your God had made it so.
Do you believe that or do you not? If you do not believe that, then please explain why and explain what you do believe contrary-wise.
We are always required to CHOOSE between God and this world.
Yes, I've encountered that: NotW stickers and all that nonsense (lots of money to be made with such paraphernalia for all the "born again" yuppies' SUVs).
But where are you to draw the line between the illusions of secular life and hard-core reality? Your fundamental problem is that your pipe-dreams conflict with rock-hard reality. How really should you respond to that?
We encounter such tests of faith all the time, what makes science any more convincing than anything else?
Theology starts out believing in human infallibility, that humans could actually pass on complete and absolute truth. As such, theology has no mechanism built into it to detect and correct for error.
Science knows from the start that it is dealing with humans, that humans are fallible, and that error will be present and will insert itself. Science makes a study of error and how to minimize it.
On top of all that, the goals are completely different. Here is what I worked out comparing "creation science" with actual science:
quote:
Now, it is quite true that science is a flawed and fallible human endeavor which has made many mistakes. And it is also quite true that scientists are fallible humans and that they have their biases as do all humans. And it is also true that not all scientists are honest and that some have perpetrated hoaxes. And the same is also quite true about creation science. But that does not put scientists and creationists, nor science and "creation science", on an equal footing.
Although both camps share many of the same human foibles that plague us all and everything that we do, there are still certain fundamental differences between science and creation science and between scientists and creationists on the whole. Fundamental differences that make all the difference in how those two human endeavors approach their research and scholarship, their mistakes, and their hoaxes.














































Science / Scientists ...Creation Science / Creationists ...
What they are trying to do:

1a. The scientist is either trying to make a new discovery or to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous discovery, hypothesis, or theory.

1b. A creationist is normally not trying to make a new discovery, nor to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous claim. As rustyb puts so succintly in his signature, "I already know the Truth." There's little use in trying to discover something new about the "Truth" that you already know a priori, nor is there any use in testing it (which would probably be sacrilegious anyway), nor to try to add to its Completeness. Rather, what a creationist is normally trying to do is to come up with convincing claims and arguments against anything that appears to contradict "the Truth" that they already know.
How they measure success:

2a. The success of the scientist's efforts depends directly on the quality of his research and on the validity of the studies that he bases his research on. Therefore, a scientist is motivated to verify his sources and to maintain high standards of scholarship.

2b. It doesn't matter whether that creationist had done a proper job of researching the claim, or had even researched it at all (though it does help to make it more convincing if there's something in the bibliography, even if that source had never actually been looked at -- remember that NASA document?). It doesn't matter if the claim or argument is valid, just that it sounds convincing; after all, the creationist already "knows" that it must be true.
Scholarship

3a. Since scientists depend so much on the validity and quality of the work of other scientists, the scientific community is motivated to police itself against shoddy or falacious research.

3b. When you research some other creationist's claim, you're not depending on that claim being true or valid; you're only depending on that claim sounding convincing.
How they handle dishonesty:

4a. Thus, a scientist who is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community.

4b. And if a claim is discovered to be false or a creationist is discovered to practice questionable methods, none of that matters, just so long as they still sound convincing. A creationist is far more likely to face censure for theological lapses than for shoddy or questionable scholarship.
ditto

5a.

5b. Of course, if a claim starts drawing too much negative publicity, then it is no longer convincing and must be dropped, as quietly as possible, until everybody has forgotten about it, whereupon it can be resurrected and received as a "new" claim.
How they handle mistakes:

6a. Mistakes and hoaxes will still happen in science, but the near-constant scrutiny and testing will uncover them.

6b. Mistakes and hoaxes will also happen in creation science, but in this case there is no mechanism in place to uncover them; indeed, there is much resistence to uncovering creationist mistakes and hoaxes.


Bottom line: science recognizes the existence of error and the sources of error and seeks actively to minimize error. Theology and "creation science" denies the existence of error (at least in its own writings) and does nothing to correct for it.
"Let every man be a liar, but God be true" is in scripture.
the Word of God is literally written into the rocks themselves! And yet you will place your own puny fallible intellect over that of God Himself? Just who do you think you are? Greater than God?
Also we are to use God's appointed spiritual weapons against "every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" which the old earth sciences certainly do -- some like you manage to remain some kind of believer although I can't see how, but thousands of others have become atheists as a result of this stuff.
What "weapons"? Ignorance? Denial? Delusion? Lies? Deception?
And how many have become atheists because of such weapons which are more worthy of being the tools of Satan than of YHWH?
If we reach the point where we can't summon any arguments against such God-denying claims, we should do what Kurt Wise did and just say OK they have the evidence but I'm sticking with the word of God anyway. "Though He slay me I will trust Him."
Now, I know that I have pointed at least one creationist to the Answers in Genesis multi-part interview with Dr. Kurt Wise. Was that you?
Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD Geology with studies in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould. Early on, he gained a reputation as being one of the very few honest creationists that could be found. Creationists would bring their "evidences" to him and he would honestly test them and report them for what they actually were, which in each case refuted what the creationists wanted to claim them to be. At a notable International Conference on Creationism, his speech took creationists of all fields to task for not having developed anything even approaching a cohesive and comprehensive creation model -- most such work had been done by geology, but it was still woefully inadequate.
How honest is he still? Last I heard more than a decade ago, he was working with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Send a virgin to work in a brothel for a decade and see how pure she still is. I'm not saying that I know how honest he still is, but I cannot be very optimistic.
The incident that Faith refers to is one day when Kurt Wise took scissors to his Bible. With his knowledge of the actual evidence and of his theology's teachings, he cut out of the Bible everything that his theology taught him he had to reject in the light of the evidence. That left his Bible in tatters. In the end, while fully acknowledging how the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and an old earth, he sided with his theology.
By bringing him up, it appears that Faith wants to appear to don the sheepskin of Dr. Kurt Wise, but she does so falsely. Dr. Kurt Wise fully recognized the vast body of evidence against his position and he understood it completely, whereas Faith still ignorantly denies and ignores the evidence. Faith, you are no Kurt Wise, so please to not mention his name in vain.
Edited by dwise1, : slight clean-up in aisle 10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 1:57 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by herebedragons, posted 12-29-2013 10:15 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 864 by roxrkool, posted 12-30-2013 12:01 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22390
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 855 of 1896 (714937)
12-29-2013 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by Faith
12-29-2013 5:31 PM


Re: FINAL SUMMARY
Faith writes:
What's impossible is that idiotic idea that rocks represent landscapes that represent times on the earth.
But this is just you mouthing off inanities again. Your strategy of finding natural explanations for Biblical stories is failing miserably because since you have no idea how nature works you just make it up. Even more inexplicably, you reject all the evidence and explanations for how nature really works.
If your strategy is to convince people that the Biblical stories are true by finding natural explanations for them, then you have to find actual natural explanations, not fantasies.
But the Flood is the most natural explanation for layered rocks of different sediments with dead things inside them.
The flood is the most natural explanation only to someone as completely ignorant of geology as yourself. Again, if you're going to be so obvious in demonstrating your disdain of how sediments are actually deposited by nature, how can you pretend to be seeking natural explanations? If you're really so determined to prove it wasn't miracles but just nature behaving naturally, then you have to begin describing things nature actually does.
I know very little about conventional Old Earth Geology,...
There's no such thing as "Old Earth Geology", just geology, but you've made your ignorance abundantly clear. Those who study how rivers and floods behave have no particular stake in how old the Earth is, but more than that, much of what you reject is just simple common sense, like heavier sediment settling out first.
...and I don't want to know more, it's obviously just an elaborate fantasy into which a lot of genuine science is forced to fit, too bad.
You know little about it, you don't want to know more about it, but you somehow know that it's wrong. Way to ruin your own credibility! Is trumpeting your ignorance and ineptitude really a good strategy?
I could be wrong about HOW various things happened concerning the Flood, but not about the Flood itself.
How could the opinion of someone as ignorant of geology as you just described have any value?
In any case I think the scenario I've been pursuing is a pretty good one and that a great deal of it has been shown to be supported by actual evidence.
Evidently, the only one who believes any evidence supports your position is you. You've already confessed a profound ignorance of geology, so from what fairy tale kingdom are you gathering this evidence? If the only way you can maintain your certainty that you're right is to also maintain your ignorance, how can you ever hope to find geological evidence supporting your views?
Of course any evidence can be turned to almost any purpose when it comes to speculations about the past,...
If true that you really believe this then you're the only one, but I think you're being less than honest since then it would make no sense for you to argue so vehemently that the evidence supports your views. Which you just did in your previous sentence.
Oh and about that pressure and heat causing the rocks to be pliable, these rocks were VERY WET, which I would think might make a difference in the temperature and therefore the pliability based on heat, not that it matters anyway of course.
This is just you making things up again. There's no evidence for any of this. It's a complete fantasy.
NOW I'D REALLY LIKE TO LEAVE THIS PLACE WHICH I EVEN WANTED TO DO AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD.
Oh, come on. Could you please find a new schtick?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by Faith, posted 12-29-2013 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024