Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 4:03 AM
396 online now:
CRR, Dr Adequate, Faith, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,294 Year: 9,900/21,208 Month: 2,987/2,674 Week: 411/961 Day: 27/114 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
28Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 331 of 409 (680754)
11-21-2012 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:18 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:

I suggested no such thing but apparently was misread to say that because of some different idea about the extent of the geological column. As I've understood it there are no STRATA that deep in the earth. The strata start somewhere on the surface of the continents in my understanding. Perhaps you can change my view of this.

Perhaps it would be clearer and more accurate if you just said all sedimentary rock ? The Flood isn't going to lay down igneous rock, whether surface deposits (many of which are not laid down under water anyway) or intrusions (which have to come after the layers they cut into, by definition).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:37 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 332 of 409 (680755)
11-21-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:19 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
quote:

I looked at the link and it seems that it does start with the conclusion rather than the argument. Not a good place to start.

I would say that it's worse than that in that it presents the method as assuming your "conclusion" as the main guide to understanding scripture - and as the historical-grammatical method when it seems to be clearly neither grammatical or historical.

And I must point out that you recommended it as the best of the links you provided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:38 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 333 of 409 (680756)
11-21-2012 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:30 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Perhaps it would be clearer and more accurate if you just said all sedimentary rock ? The Flood isn't going to lay down igneous rock, whether surface deposits (many of which are not laid down under water anyway) or intrusions (which have to come after the layers they cut into, by definition).

OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column? If so, why insist on the different term? Yes I know igneous rock was formed AFTER the strata were laid down, that's a major part of my argument as a matter of fact.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:30 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 4:52 AM Faith has responded
 Message 336 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:54 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 334 of 409 (680757)
11-21-2012 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:35 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
Well, apparently I misjudged it then, it looked good at first glance.

ABE: Here try this one. It's audio though. First talk in a series, or second, I forget. Lays out the principles by which one GETS to the conclusion that article unfortunately starts with.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22107204117

Edited by Faith, : Add ABE


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:35 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Boof
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 88
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(4)
Message 335 of 409 (680759)
11-21-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:37 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column? If so, why insist on the different term? Yes I know igneous rock was formed AFTER the strata were laid down, that's a major part of my argument as a matter of fact.

That's exactly the question I have been asking you Faith. You introduced the term 'geological column'. I am unfamiliar with the term so I asked you to describe it for me. Why has it been so hard? So now we can confirm - the geological column is any rocks we see in layers correct?

By the way igneous rocks appear above and below and within the layers, meaning they were layed down before, during and after strata was being layed down.

Edited by Boof, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM Boof has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 336 of 409 (680760)
11-21-2012 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:37 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:

OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column?

No, because it includes igneous rock. Why should a stratum created as a magma flow be excluded from the column? The column is usually based on the rocks as they exist today, isn't it? (Actually the term seems to be unclear and mainly used by creationists, if my google search has any bearing!)

E.g geological column in Northern Ireland - the best I could find quickly, excluding sites dealing eith creationism from either perspective, includes basalts, for instance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:12 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 337 of 409 (680761)
11-21-2012 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Boof
11-21-2012 4:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Well then there is quite a definitional disconnect going on here that I certainly wasn't aware of. I thought the term was mainstream. Do you then call it the Geological time scale?

I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer.

That IS one of the points in Dr. A's course I noted that I would argue with.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 4:52 AM Boof has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:14 AM Faith has responded
 Message 350 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2012 7:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Boof
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 88
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 338 of 409 (680762)
11-21-2012 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:54 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
PaulK writes:

No, because it includes igneous rock. Why should a stratum created as a magma flow be excluded from the column? The column is usually based on the rocks as they exist today, isn't it? (Actually the term seems to be unclear and mainly used by creationists, if my google search has any bearing!)

E.g geological column in Northern Ireland - the best I could find quickly, excluding sites dealing eith creationism from either perspective, includes basalts, for instance.

Yes, this is the problem I have been having PK. As a geologist the term "geological column" is not a phrase I use - I have used the geological time scale, and I might produce a local stratigraphic column in preparing my maps. But not "geological column", and I certainly have never found any reference to am ENTIRE geological column that Faith refers to. Thanks for helping to extricate some answers!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:54 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 339 of 409 (680763)
11-21-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:54 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Well let's agree on a term then. What do you want to call it, the stratigraphic column as Boof suggested he sometimes uses? I prefer to avoid Geological Time Scale because of course that's tendentious.

I'm willing to DESCRIBE the strata as including the igneous layers but since I believe they are more recent than ALL the other layers that can be a tendentious definition too.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 5:22 AM Faith has responded

    
Boof
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 88
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(3)
Message 340 of 409 (680764)
11-21-2012 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:06 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

Well then there is quite a definitional disconnect going on here that I certainly wasn't aware of. I thought the term was mainstream. Do you then call it the Geological time scale?

Well if you thought the term was mainstream why didnít you simply point me to a mainstream article referencing it? That would have sufficed. I certainly use the term geological time scale, but that is certainly not what youíve been talking about because ALL rocks on Earth fit within that framework.

Faith writes:

I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer..

Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:21 AM Boof has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 341 of 409 (680765)
11-21-2012 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Boof
11-21-2012 5:14 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Well if you thought the term was mainstream why didnít you simply point me to a mainstream article referencing it? That would have sufficed.

I had NO idea that was a problem. I simply couldn't make any sense of what you were saying. I had NO idea why there was such a disconnect. You never said you didn't recognize that term so how would I know?

I certainly use the term geological time scale, but that is certainly not what youíve been talking about because ALL rocks on Earth fit within that framework.

I'm sure this still needs some sorting out for the sake of clarity.

Boof writes:

Faith writes:

I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer..

Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.

Don't just start shooting out objections at me again. I have reasons for thinking as I do and you may be talking from some completely other frame of reference. You can't deal with this argument that way. If you're so impatient about someone challenging your expertise and just want to slap us down with mystifying assertions I don't want to argue with you.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:14 AM Boof has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:46 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 342 of 409 (680766)
11-21-2012 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:12 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Since you seem to mean "all sedimentary rock" why not just say "all sedimentary rock" as I suggested earlier?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 343 of 409 (680767)
11-21-2012 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by PaulK
11-21-2012 5:22 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.

Also, the schist at the bottom of the GC WAS a sedimentary layer but now is a different kind of rock. I don't want to exclude that layer from the definition.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 5:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 6:31 AM Faith has responded
 Message 347 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 6:39 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 348 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 6:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Boof
Member (Idle past 146 days)
Posts: 88
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 344 of 409 (680768)
11-21-2012 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:21 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

I had NO idea that was a problem. I simply couldn't make any sense of what you were saying. I had NO idea why there was such a disconnect. You never said you didn't recognize that term so how would I know?

Indeed I didn't say I did not recognise the term, perhaps if I had it would have made my request clearer. My bad. All the same I'm a little surprised that you could not make any sense of my query "Could you please show me this geological column you have been referring to?" from message 256.

Faith writes:

Boof writes:

Faith writes:

I dispute that interpretation of the igneous layers. The volcanic action all occurred after the whole stack of layers was in place, it rose through the strata making dikes and sills and sometimes it didn't reach to the uppermost layer..

Well this would make it hard to explain why you get well rounded boulders of granite and volcanic rocks in conglomeratic sediments.

Don't just start shooting out objections at me again. I have reasons for thinking as I do and you may be talking from some completely other frame of reference. You can't deal with this argument that way. If you're so impatient about someone challenging your expertise and just want to slap us down with mystifying assertions I don't want to argue with you.

So you can dispute my interpretation of the geology, but I can't dispute yours? I think it was a reasonable observation and look forward to hearing a creationist perspective on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:15 AM Boof has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24406
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 345 of 409 (680769)
11-21-2012 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Boof
11-21-2012 5:46 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Obviously you had no way of knowing I assumed you used the term just as I did, and I had no way of knowing it wasn't familiar to you. I just took you to be doing the usual thing I encounter here, insisting that I explain something you already know the answer to. That is, you wanted me to define the geological column just to catch me in some different understanding of it than you consider orthodox, not because you didn't even know the term.

I've already said I confine my argument to the Grand Canyon so when you bring in granite boulders and don't define their location except "conglomerate" - that's just mystification. Is it in the strata of the Grand Canyon or not? If not, then why do you expect me to have an explanation for it?

No, you aren't interested in the creationist perspective at all, just making creationists toe your line as everybody here does, as the Road Trip itself that started this thread aimed to do. You don't listen for half a minute to the creationist argument before you're putting out the next objection you think will really do us in. That's the modus operandi here, you're just doing your own version of it.

As you said from the moment you entered this discussion, your objective was just to slap me down for daring to challenge your sacrosant Holy Science and all its holier-than-thou priests. That's why you brought up eclogite and thats got to be why you are bringing this up, NOT to find out what a creationist view of it might be but just to find a way to blast me for not having an advanced degree in geology and having a creationist opinion at all. Which you refuse to think about, just telling me I "misunderstand" the Grand Canyon and need to study things I've already studied.

I'm not playing.

I'm getting off EvC for the night.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:46 AM Boof has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 7:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017