|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Growing the Geologic Column | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are not in a position to tell me what contradicts God. Don't go there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'd know you were lying or deluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I keep trying to get across to you, the speculations about HOW the Flood happened are not given by divine revelation so yes I can come to see that a particular interpretation isn't going to work, though you can bet I'm going to give it a long run first. What is NOT in doubt is that there WAS such an event, whether we know how it played out or not. And too much of your geology contradicts that one simple revelation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible isn't that hard to understand on the issues that matter. All you have to do is be honest and believe what it says. The parts that are problematic require consulting commentaries or leaving them until God gives you understanding of them. Yes you can know and understand the Bible but you have to be willing to accept what it actually says as the truth. The problem is too many people balk at it where it contradicts human wisdom and try to make it fit such things as humanly created science and then they go very very wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why? The evidence does not support a truly global flood. That is, unless you would consider today's oceans as a global flood as well. There is no evidence out there that is diagnostic Anyone who can't see the evidence for the Flood in the miles-deep sedimentary strata and their fossil contents has no appreciation of what evidence is. Or the rest of the ravaged planet we live on for that matter. Yes the Bible is dogma. That's what God's revelation is. It's the only information we MUST believe because He gave it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you for your very predictable periodic reminder of the Correct Opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible isn't that hard to understand on the issues that matter.
Is that why there are several hundred Christian denominations? That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those. The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not.
All you have to do is be honest and believe what it says.
Ah, I see, it's that easy. Kind of like the internet.
It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order.
The parts that are problematic require consulting commentaries or leaving them until God gives you understanding of them. Yes you can know and understand the Bible but you have to be willing to accept what it actually says as the truth.
That's what I do with evidence. And the evidence says nothing about a truly global flood. To me, that means the story is allegory. But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past.
The problem is too many people balk at it where it contradicts human wisdom.
You mean the human wisdom is correct only when it agrees with the Bible. Of course.
So, where does the Bible say that the planet is 6ky old? It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings.
.. and try to make it fit such things as humanly created science and then they go very very wrong.
Why should it be that difficult? Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible.
Common sense tells me that evaporites should not be deposited in a flood. A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits.
It also tells me that while the Grand Canyon area was relatively quiescent during the Paleozoic, there was a lot going on elsewhere in the world. The fact that you have to confine yourself to isolated locations and times to support your viewpoint suggests to me that you are making stuff up. But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else. I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You'll have to ask God why the evidence does not support that position. Isn't it clear yet? You misunderstand the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There never was another "apologetics," that was just someone's made-up accusation. And this isn't apologetics either, I'm getting interrogated so I'm answering the questions I'm asked. Maybe if I answer them enough they'll stop asking them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are missing 90% of what I said that you think you are answering and I'm too tired right now to deal with it properly. So all I'll do here is ask you to supply the time periods for the events on your chart. I really can't go research all that, though I did for JonF's similar presentation. Too much, sorry. Later or tomorrow I'll try to answer the post itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Would have thought that evidence is simply anything that evidently would have been caused by the event it evidences. Strata and fossils on the scale they in fact exist would evidently have been the result of a worldwide Flood. Raising objections to parts of it is simply another subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
'Every single time?" Wow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's just a weird misrepresentation of the facts. Note that I said "the issues that matter," and the vast majority of all those denominations agree on those.
So, you agree with RC church on evolution and old ages? Bizarre non sequitur there. I'm sure you pride yourself on your logical mind but this hardly justifies such pride. "The vast majority" must certainly exclude some from the category of "those who agree on the issues that matter." With this hint I'll trust you to draw the appropriate conclusion.
The differences are on minor points, points of organization usually. Debunkers like to make this statistic sound like something it's not.
But it appears a great enough difference to break away and then to fight wars over... So you wish to persist in the idea that the RC Church is just one of the denominations? Well, it's not, I don't include it among those many denominations, it's the False Church. The Reformation made that quite clear to those who are paying attention. Which isn't many, most are fogged out on the subject, but the facts are there for those who want to know. And may I ask what wars you could possibly be talking about? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The American Civil War? The Napoleonic Wars? The Bolshevik Revolution?
It would be nice if you'd respect that I'm being serious and remarks like that are out of order.
Give us a reason to take your scenario seriously. Show us now evaporites formed during the fludde. I've given you my provisional hypothesis a few times already.
Show us how dinosaurs proliferate in the middle of the greatest disaster to ever occur on earth. Show us why radiometric dates confirm relative ages. Strange thinking there, obviously misunderstanding something or other.
Science is not 'nice'. And discussion boards are even less nice. If you cannot support your position, you should go somewhere and learn some facts. You just don't like the facts I focus on but I've pointed to plenty of facts. And isn't it time the barbarian internet learned a little civility? Why should Science need barbarian tactics?
But the fact is that you are misinterpreting the evidence when it comes to the events of the past.
Then show me where I did so. AFAICS, this is just another assertion that you cannot support.
Would have thought it obvious in the context of this side trip on this thread, that wherever you or any scientist interprets the evidence in terms of billions of years of Earth history, and when you interpret the strata and the fossils to exclude the obvious explanation of the Flood, you are misinterpreting.
It's calculated from the ages of the Patriarchs in Genesis 5, ...
The Bible does this calculation? You do seem to be suffering from some sort of mental infirmity to say such a thing. No, readers do, you can.
... other genealogies and other clues in the text, plus historical facts apart from the Bible such as the known reign of some kings.
So, the Bible does not actually say that the earth is 6ky old, right? It's all calculated. The facts are there, the calculations can be done.
Fallen human nature is geared to contradicting God. That's why He gave us the Bible.
So, you are not fallen? It seems to me that you are evading here. Are you indeed infallible? Can you read, edge? We're ALL fallen, naturally geared to contradicting God, as you just quoted me saying, that's why God gave us the Bible, so we don't have to go on staggering blindly in the dark. I trust the Bible as God's word and try to follow where it leads because God's truth is the only cure for my fallenness. Of course if you prefer your fallen condition and ignore the Bible there's no remedy.
A Bible believer then looks for other explanations. Such as that they leached out of the rocks after they were deposited, which looks to me like it fits the known facts of what happens where there are salt deposits.
Okay, what is the mechanism for this? How do you get pure salts? How do you get precipitation patterns and geometries that look like lakes? Why shouldn't there be underground lakes? Good grief man, I've never presented myself as knowledgeable about such things, my job here is to try to see things normally seen from the OE and Evo perspective from the Creationist and Floodist perspective, coming up with alternative views, and proving such views is a slow process of acquiring the necessary information. For me here but Creationism itself is really in the beginning stage. Why do you demand perfection of an enterprise that is only in its beginnings?
You keep making these assertions but never provide evidence or explanations. Well I think I have done so. Sorry you don't see it.
But that's why I'm looking for information about other parts of the world in the cross sections I've been collecting. Getting a good collection isn't easy. Other languages, inferior diagrams, stuff too small to read clearly, and the basic problem of how complicated the geology is elsewhere, ...
You understand why it is complicated, don't you? It's because your model is so simple minded. Yes my model is very simple minded. That's a virtue in this case. But no, it's complicated because the geology itself is complicated. There's very little out there that shows the neat undisturbed accumulation of the strata as the Grand Canyon area does. To reconstruct the original neat undisturbed strata requires undoing the knots in it brought about mostly by faulting. Here's a cute one for example, not terribly hard to interpret but riddled with faults:
And this one's nice too:
... the enormous amount of faulting for instance. I believe I can reconstruct the original situation through all that but I don't know if I could convince you. I do think you must have been convinced by me about the "quiescent" Grand Canyon during the Paleozoic (really the Phanerozoic), since I've never encountered that idea anywhere else.
It's all relative, but I would agree that the sediments were deposited in a location that was on the stable continental platform. But this is news?? I showed it from the cross section.
I'm sure you'll deny it but oh well. Anyway maybe there's hope for convincing you of a few other things.
Well, you haven't come close yet. Sad but true. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But my point was that you are missing the forest for the trees. The big picture is that the strata and the fossils are OBVIOUSLY excellent evidence for a worldwide Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let's get something in perspective here. The interspersed layers do not meet the original conditions.
All this stuff about the igneous rocks came up way back when I said they aren't part of the geologic column as I envision it and that when they are seen there it is as intrusives, or dikes and sills. This started a flurry of efforts to prove me wrong, and you know what, in an important sense I don't think any of them have succeeded (except the Cardenas) because none of them are about the geologic column as I envision it. Such as shown in the walls of the Grand Canyon. The thick strata that span continents. I thought I'd been pretty clear about this but maybe not clear enough.
Now everybody keeps saying I've been shown I'm wrong but if you consider my original frame of reference that really is not the case because the examples given don't meet the conditions of the geologic column as I was describing it. Except for the Cardenas layer. This is not moving goalposts, this is simply trying to keep the original context in mind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : add link to message
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024