Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 12:22 PM
444 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,863 Year: 6,469/21,208 Month: 2,230/2,634 Week: 418/572 Day: 35/99 Hour: 5/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 361 of 409 (680812)
11-21-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
11-21-2012 1:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it . . .

We are more interested in conclusions that are in accord with the evidence. Showing adherence to a theological dogma may play well in church, but it doesn't play well amongst scientists.

I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, . . .

I am pretty sure you have.

1. Coconino sandstones: these are windblown sand dunes. They are not flood deposits.

2. Great unconformity: A great picture can be found here. In this case, we have sediments tipped at about a 30 degree angle to the rest of the formations. How does a flood make these deposits? One flood can't. It is completely inconsistent with a flood.

3. Incised meanders: Catastrophic flooding does not produce incised meanders like those found here. Catastrophic erosion by flooding produces wide, straight channels, often with braiding. Only a slower moving river produces those types of meanders, and a slow moving river will not excavate the Grand Canyon in the time needed.

Those are just 3 problems with your claims. There are many others. Again, don't tell us that your views are consistent with creationists. We want to see views that are consistent with the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2848
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 362 of 409 (680815)
11-21-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Percy
11-21-2012 9:40 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Percy writes:

Going from the top the major layers of the Grand Canyon consist of:

Limestone
Shale
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone
Limestone
Shale
Limestone
Shale
Sandstone

Material suspended in flood waters falls out of suspension according to density and particle size. The mere fact of alternating layers is the simplest way to eliminate a flood as a possible cause of the layers of the Grand Canyon.

Thank-you for this.
I was unaware that the layers alternated in such a way.
The coupling of simplicity and power within this argument against a natural flood causing the layers of the Grand Canyon is nice to see.

Maybe someone could say the flood was God-guided (or magical), but I cannot understand how anyone could attempt to explain this fact by dealing with a naturally-guided flood. It's just impossible. Like Jesus' resurrection. Naturally impossible. The only explanation would be by God's will.

I suppose the only issue would be that if you hinge your belief in God on a natural-flood forming the layers of the Grand Canyon (or "taking the Bible literally")... then you either have to ignore plain, simple, obvious facts or restructure your belief in God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 9:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4399
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 363 of 409 (680823)
11-21-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:27 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.
Correction, the currents do occur at various levels, but the layers I had in mind are formed by the different temperatures at various depths and are a different phenomenon from the currents.

So I re-read Genesis. There was one flood that lasted a year, it began to subside after 150 days. So basically, the whole of earth was covered with water above mountain height, then drained away somehow like letting water out of a bath.

All of the 'loose' material on the earth would have been stirred up a bit then settled out to form sediments. It would happen like this, with the big stuff dropping to the bottom first then and the fine stuff last.

(I think it best if we forget the dissolving bit, don't you?)

So it would work like this:

Unfortunately. that's not what we see in your canyon. What we see are many different levels were several different kinds of mixtures have settled out at different times.

You seem to want the layers to all form within the water before settling out - nope, that doesn't work does it?


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23960
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 364 of 409 (680944)
11-21-2012 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Tangle
11-21-2012 10:03 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Dissolving "stuff" somehow equates to dissolving ROCK for you guys? "Stuff?" I'm thinking MUDSLIDES here, not ROCK.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 10:03 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 6:31 PM Faith has responded
 Message 377 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23960
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 365 of 409 (680945)
11-21-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Coragyps
11-21-2012 10:56 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column/COCONINO
The Coconino Sandstone, contrary to old earth lore, is a FLAT SLAB OF ROCK, flat on the bottom, flat on the top, not SAND DUNES, which don't lay themselves out in flat layers. The sand had to have been formed elsewhere and transported to its current layer. Surely there is a principle by which the sand, which had been shaped before being moved, has a way of laying itself in the position that makes for crossbedding, just because of its orientation, that is, the orientation of its separate shaped grains.

Ocean water has tides, waves, currents, layers. It carries things.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2012 10:56 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 6:41 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 370 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 6:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4399
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 366 of 409 (680948)
11-21-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:23 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud doesn't dissolve either, but let it go,

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:40 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23960
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 367 of 409 (680950)
11-21-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Percy
11-21-2012 9:40 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
No, they are not composed of soil, they are composed of sand and calcium carbonate grains and clays that lithified into rock. Sand and clays certainly DO occur in soils however.

In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme.

As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences.

AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them.

Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side. Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm.

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 356 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 9:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 6:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 373 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23960
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 368 of 409 (680951)
11-21-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Tangle
11-21-2012 6:31 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud is dissolved stuff.

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 366 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 6:31 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:47 PM Faith has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 369 of 409 (680952)
11-21-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:27 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
The Coconino Sandstone, contrary to old earth lore, is a FLAT SLAB OF ROCK, flat on the bottom, flat on the top, not SAND DUNES, which don't lay themselves out in flat layers.

They form flat sets of cross-beds, as you''d know if you were remotely interested in geology.

Surely there is a principle by which the sand, which had been shaped before being moved, has a way of laying itself in the position that makes for crossbedding ...

Yeah, it's called "being formed by sand-dunes".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 370 of 409 (680954)
11-21-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:27 PM


Sand shows that YEC is false.
The sand had to have been formed elsewhere and transported to its current layer.

Yay Faith.

Sand again shows that the earth is old. See How to make sand..

And you need to provide the Flood Mechanism that creates cross bedding and that lays down just sandstone and nothing else in a particular layer. Also explain how it preserves footprints.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 371 of 409 (680955)
11-21-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:38 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme.

Except to people who've actually studied the rocks.

As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences.

What is this "NO differences between them in CONDITION" even meant to mean? Is it the same as "completely different in every conceivable respect apart from merely being sedimentary rocks"?

AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them.

Oh, apart from the tectonic events recorded by the great unconformity, the erosional events recorded by the other unconformities, and the uplift of the frickin' Colorado Plateau.

Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side.

Things that creationists make up and are plainly contrary to fact alert us that it's the young earth scenarios that are fantastic. 'Cos of being, y'know, fantasies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 534 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 372 of 409 (680956)
11-21-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:40 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud is dissolved stuff.

...No, it's really not. Mud is a mixture, not a solution.

You're using terminology that has a technical meaning in ways inconsistent with that technical meaning. Mixtures and suspensions are very different from solutions - solutes must be precipitated out of solution, the most common method for which being to evaporate the solvent.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 534 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 373 of 409 (680958)
11-21-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:38 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm.

The projection, it burns...


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23960
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 374 of 409 (680961)
11-21-2012 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Tangle
11-21-2012 12:13 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
I don't claim to know how the water laid down the sediments. I certainly doubt all the simplistic explanations here are sufficient. This is not just another flood, as some keep comparing it to, which ought to be obvious. GLOBAL, ya know, GLOBAL, endless rain for forty nights and day AROUND THE globe. Ah well.

Anyway, the mechanics of deposition aren't obvious. Could involve precipitation but could involve deposition by waves, long waves that moved a great distance across the land area before depositing their loads of sediments the way waves deposit sand on a beach, I don't see how you could know for sure.

It's just that there is no way that stack of layers got put there over millions of years per supposed time unit, it HAD to have been deposited in the Flood because that's what that much water would do.

The old earth scenarios that read complex histories and landscapes into slabs of rock are sheer fairy tale. Again, NOTHING HAPPENED TO THEM until the canyon was cut.

Ah well.

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 363 by Tangle, posted 11-21-2012 12:13 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 394 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2012 9:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2012 2:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 534 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(4)
Message 375 of 409 (680963)
11-21-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:51 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith, you would probably be far better served to abandon making specific statements about the geological mechanisms involved in the Flood and stick to what you (according to your interpretation of the Bible) "know:"

You've claimed that the FLood happened as described in Genesis; that it was global in scope; that the Earth is some thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old. Most importantly, you've said that while the current scientific models for geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc all contradict this view, you are utterly confident that the scientific models will be proven wrong at some later date, and the Biblical record (as you interpret it) will be vindicated as wholly accurate.

Just stick with that. You can say "I have no idea how the rocks were all formed; I have no idea why fossils appear where they do. All I know is that the Flood happened, and anything that contradicts that fact must be wrong, even if nobody yet knows precisely how. The currently accepted models of science are based on faulty data, and some day this will be borne out."

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." All your inference has done thus far is provide specifics for your opponents to tear down as hopelessly wrong according to all demonstrable scientific models, as well as opportunity for you to misuse technical terms.

Since you're already taking an apologetic stance and placing the conclusion (the Flood happened) prior to (and regardless of) evidence, why bother trying to fill in the blanks? "God said it, I believe it, and that's the end of it" would more concisely encapsulate your argument in this thread.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Rahvin has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017