Summations Only

After re-reading your post, you don't think that the plates move at a few inches per DAY do you?

I guess you are questioning my calculations? It's quite simple. 4300 years to travel 3000 miles gets the result I got. And 20 feet per day is merely the starting speed, after which it continuously slows down to its present few inches a year. Twenty feet a day is ten feet on either side of the Atlantic ridge by the way so that the movement is in both directions.By Abraham's time the speed would have slowed some already, and he was in the Middle East so why would earthquakes from the Atlantic area be a problem?

Sorry, no, I know it's per year.

Well no, there isn't. The sun rises in the East, Queen Anne is dead, creationists are wrong about everything ... it's not so much a newsflash as an eternal verity.

You know, over the course of "many years" you might have found something out about the Grand Canyon other than that many of the layers are kinda horizontal. "Many years" research you've put in, forsooth, and yet things like the sedimentology of the rocks and the course of the Colorado River are "side issues" that you haven't gotten around to yet? What exactly have you been doing during these "many years"? Do tell.

Tectonic plate movement affects the whole globe, not just the Atlantic. So you have to slow the movement before there are a lot of people to notice, because there is nothing to suggest that there is a marked difference in earthquake frequency in recorded history. 20 feet per day with it already slowed by Abe's time means you still need feet per day and he would have noticed.
The seamount chains I have mentioned in the other thread have to be built by then also so that is why I say you have to consider the vulcanism your scenario produces.
Do you understand how geologic ages are determined?

Faith, I know I have asked this before and I'm sure others have as well, but has it ever occurred to you to actually read some books on geology? As in textbooks? As in maybe even take a class or two?Reading this post (in addition to the other thousands previous to this one)... is, to borrow one of your words, excruciatingly insulting. Not to only geologists in general, but to any rational and scientifically-literate person. The hubris you display is staggering, to say the least. I honestly don't know whether to applaud your misplaced self-confidence or feel sorry for you. Seriously.Despite 13,000+ posts on this forum and an apparent high intellect, you have apparently learned nothing as you continue to presumptuously proclaim to all who will listen that because geology is a historical science, your guess is as good as everyone else's, including those who spend the majority of their lives actually looking at rocks. You proclaim that because we cannot visit the mantle or go back in time to see just how the rocks formed, there is no way to support or track causality in the geologic record. And this somehow gives you the right to posit a multitude of ignorant, inexperienced, and preposterous ramblings that even the most incompetent geologist can dispel. With this, you will undoubtedly disagree, but that has more to do with your own inability to consider anything outside your abridged world view than the reality of the situation.Geology is an interpretive, verifiable science, and we do this by examining the rocks in detail through geochemical, textural, mineralogical, geophysical analyses, by examining and attempting to understand the geometry of the lithologic and structural relationships, and attempting to understand the role of configuration in the final result. When it comes to a geologic puzzle we'd like to solve, we don't just sit at our computers looking at pictures of rock outcrops and offering up armchair postulates.We actually go out into the field, map the rocks, the faults, the alteration types and assemblages, the fossil assemblages, and we also collect rock samples for geochemical and petrographic analyses. The minerals present in the rocks have formed and are stable under very specific conditions, therefore assemblages of minerals, by default, provide an even better resolution of the conditions under which the rocks formed. The relationships between the rocks and the faults give us relative timing of the events of their formation. Every piece of evidence we collect (and we collect a LOT) offers up even more clues to aid in our interpretations, and every subsequent study or analysis either supports or refutes the working hypothesis. We test these hypotheses by predicting where we'll find the same rocks, alterations, fossils.You, on the other hand, make many, very ignorant, comments and never bother to back them up with any sort of analysis. Granted you are in no position to do so from your keyboard, but that's even more reason to stop and think about what exactly it is you are writing. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears screaming, "blah, blah, blah" whenever anyone presents anything to the contrary, and then soldier on as if no one has said a thing.There is nothing respectable about that.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

I'm sure it doesn't make any sense to you, but to make the points I want to make on this thread doesn't need sophisticated knowledge of geology, and if I had such knowledge I wouldn't be any less insulting because the point is very simple: it's crazy to interpret the strata in terms of time periods of millions of years. Very insulting of course. And I don't think all your detailed work REALLY supports this conclusion either. I think I've made my case and that nobody has bothered to follow the logic of it. Your post doesn't bother, that's for sure, it's just a long ad hominem rant.And besides, I'd WAY rather insult the lot of you than insult God, as all of you do every day with your Old Earth and evolution.I'd rather not insult anyone though, but I do think Old Earth theory is STUPID, no matter how you piece it together from everyday observations, and I think it's OBVIOUS and that if people who are deep into the science of it can't see beyond their preconceptions I would hope that nonscientific people could recognize it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Though the word "sophisticated" is superfluous, your sentiment is basically correct. Oh, I think I did. It went something like this. It's ridiculous to think that real processes that we can see depositing sediment now could possibly have deposited sediment in exactly the same way in the past. Also, even if that did happen, it wouldn't explain the not-really-facts that Faith has made up in her head, which can easily be disproved by a cursory glance at the actual rocks. Therefore geology should be explained by magic, though not, perish the thought, explained in any detail. Also, any evidence that completely proves Faith wrong should be ignored because she doesn't have time to think about it --- why, it took her years of research to find out that some of the layers in the Grand Canyon are more or less horizontal, and her brain still hasn't quite recovered from the mighty effort. Oh, and in any case, she isn't Faith, she's God. Have I missed anything? Ah yes, of course. It's impossible to find out anything about the past by looking at the evidence, and the evidence proves that the Flood happened. In the past.Though describing this as "logic" seems pitching it a little high when the English language contains such useful words as bunkum, hogwash, baloney, flapdoodle, hooey, and crap.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Rox, this sums up Faith's whole participation at EvC. There is nothing respectable about any of it.I think your post eloquently describes what scientific study actually means and what a sham it is when Faith calls what she does as "study".Ironically, she is a great ambassador for science and education by her example of intellectual consequences of blind faith and the worship of ignorance.

But how do you explain it Faith?

quote:

---

As a very simple observation, consider instructions given in virtually every gardening book. A good soil will have a mix of sand, silt and clay. To determine the quality of your soil, you take a handful or two, put it in a clear container, add water and shake it up. When you stop shaking, the coarse grained material will settle out first resulting in a sequence of layers: sand on the bottom, then silt, then clay. You can readily see how much of each you have by the thickness of each layer.

---

Have you ever done that Faith?When you say layers were deposited by the flood and those layers do not show these characteristics then you have some explaining to do.These are Christians telling you that your view of the GC is wrong, and giving you evidence to back it up. After a brief discussion of lake varves they conclude with this:

quote:

---

Figure 4 shows varve data from Steel Lake and Lake Suigetsu extended to the limit of carbon-14 detection. Serious consideration of this data should be sobering for the committed Young-Earther.

​

The high degree of linearity (straightness) of this data has two possible interpretations.

​

Option 1: 50,000 varves represent roughly 50,000 years, and the fact that the Suigetsu varves continue to about 100,000 means the earth’s history also must extend to at least 100,000 years.

​

Option 2: God started with a fast rate of carbon 14 decay and dozens of diatom blooms and die-offs each year, but then intentionally and precisely slowed down each independent and unrelated process in such a way as to make it falsely look as if the data confirms the accuracy of carbon-14 and varve counting as legitimate methods of determining age.

​

Option 2 should be unacceptable to all Christians, for it means God manipulated his creation so that a study of it would convincingly tell a story that was not in fact true.

​

Conclusions

​

We argue with great conviction that Option 2 above does not reflect the God of King David who proclaimed that the heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19), nor of the Apostle Paul who stated that God’s eternal character and divine nature are manifest in what he has created (Romans 1:20). If the creation speaks of a specific history, it is our belief that God’s creation speaks truthfully and the history is real.

---

Is that your god Faith? a faker of evidence? Is that how you explain the speleothems?Note that mindspawn appears to have abandoned the Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD debate on age counting systems at about this level of evidence, as he is running out of excuses to jigger each independent method and still end up with the appearance of correlation with high degrees of consilience.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : link

Hi RoxRKool,We all have people in our lives who inexplicably believe impossible things in contradiction to all evidence, common sense and even simple logic. Can anyone out there claim success in persuading these people away from their ideas? I know the success rate is greater than 0%, but I bet it's not by much. Should it be any different with Faith?So if persuading Faith to accept modern geology isn't a realistic goal, what is? I think we've already done it over and over and over again by describing (often in great detail) how Faith's conceptions of geological history stand in contradiction to the evidence and sometimes even of physical laws.It is for me as I expect it is for others both a mystery and a source of great frustration how we can walk Faith right up to the evidence that shows she's wrong and have her time after time declare that our interpretations are impossible and make no sense. Lately she's gone even further and declared that our simple deductions from the evidence are bizarre and that we must be suffering hallucinations. Even concepts as simple as that the heaviest sediment must fall out first (which RAZD recently repeated) are discarded as if nonsensical.While Faith's behavior is a puzzlement, she's not alone. Mindspawn exhibits the same behavior, as did Buzsaw. I think all we can do is continue presenting the scientific story, because it has great value for those who are able to follow evidence to logical conclusions even when it might contradict what they already believe.--Percy

I miss Ray.

No, you calculated it as the average speed. If it was ever slower, it must also have been much higher in order to get that average. Have you ever tried , ya know, thinking rather than just spewing?Where did the plates go during this process?If Atlantic was opening up at that fantastic rate, the other plates must have been moving at comparable rates, or else the European plate would have nowhere to go.Causing earthquakes at plate boundaries and in mountain building areas all overt the world, just as we see today, but at rates many orders of magnitude more often and more powerful than we see today.Note the circled area. Ever hear of people living in that vicinity? Right between two mountain-building areas? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I think the main reason for continuing to engage with Faith, Mindspawn et al is for people such as I was, those who are seeking answers and who will appreciate being shown facts. (Not that I no longer seek answers to anything, but my questions on age of Earth issues are pretty well settled).