Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stratigraphy and Creationism
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 47 (87286)
02-18-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 2:20 PM


quote:
The evidence is blatantly obvious that there was global flooding. The global occurrance of water-deposited sediment (along with sea creatures) and stratification IS the evidence.
The problem arises when there are layers that show non-water deposition, such as sandstone showing ripple marks from wind displacement. In other words, we have a layer of desert sedimentation above a layer of water deposition on top of a layer of desert sedimentation, and on and on. For your global flood to occur, the water had to dry up, a desert form, and then another flood, ad nauseum. It is the interspersal of non-flood deposition between layers of water deposition that is the problem. Not to mention fine particulate sediments such as shale that require vast amounts of time to accumulate given the thickness of the layers. In a violent and cataclysmic flood, these particulates would stay suspended for long periods of time and only collect at the top of every geologic column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 2:20 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 17 of 47 (87288)
02-18-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 2:20 PM


lunkhead writes:
The evidence is blatantly obvious that there was global flooding.
It so "blatantly obvious" that no YECs have EVER been able to point to these elusive flood deposits.
It so "blatantly obvious" that no professional geologist has ever found anything even remotely suggestive of a global flood.
Whether or not all, some, or part of the strata are due to the Noachian flood, the formation of the planet, or some other global catastrophe is anybody's guess.
Nice try. You think you've found an out by suggesting the flood may or may not be responsible for all the geologic record, however, the fact is, if the geologic column is not entirely the result of a global flood, you've just increased the problems one hundred-fold.
The simplest explanation is that the flood resulted in everything we see today. Fine. Now you have to explain why there are buried sections that are identical to surficial deposits we see today, such as dunes, river systems, lakes, soils, alluvial, erosive, etc.
I suppose you could say, "well the flood is not responsible for that stuff." Okay. So did the flood happen before or after? No matter what you say, there will always be a problem with surficial deposits - because they occur THROUGHOUT the entire geologic record.
Or you can say, "well you're just interpreting it wrong." Fine. You interpret it and then explain how no one has ever observed mud cracks forming on the ocean floor, or paleosols, or sand dunes like the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone that contains terrestrial fossils and many foot prints?
SO if the flood is not responsible for everything, then we are now looking for a smaller section? You still have to correlate it globally, however, and then you have to account for all the thousand of feet of strata both below and above your supposed flood section.
Not so easy. Which is why no YEC geologist is willing to step up to the plate. We're still waiting... two hundred years later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 2:20 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 18 of 47 (87289)
02-18-2004 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 3:16 PM


lunkhead writes:
PS This forum should be called "ATDforum" (Agree to Disagree). Evolutionists are convinced merely by what they see. Creationists are convinced by what they cannot see.
Well doesn't that statement speak volumes!!! lol
Apparently, those God-goggles have opaque lenses.
[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 02-18-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 3:16 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
Lunkhead
Member (Idle past 7335 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 19 of 47 (87290)
02-18-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 3:16 PM


I mentioned to my family that I signed on to an E v C forum, and they said, "Boy, that sounds like a pointless, endless loop." They're right. An endless exercise in speculation.
Singing off,
Lunkhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 3:16 PM Lunkhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2004 4:05 PM Lunkhead has not replied
 Message 24 by roxrkool, posted 02-18-2004 11:48 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 47 (87292)
02-18-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 3:55 PM


It is a very common reaction. When asked questions that can not be answerered the creationist "agrees to disagree" and leaves. Will there ever be an answer?
The "which are flood deposits" question is just one of those that seems to be unanswerable and produces this reaction. I think we had a questions topic for these kind of questions.
Bye, oh-so-appropriately-named-poster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 3:55 PM Lunkhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 02-18-2004 4:49 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 47 (87304)
02-18-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
02-18-2004 4:05 PM


quote:
It is a very common reaction. When asked questions that can not be answerered the creationist "agrees to disagree" and leaves. Will there ever be an answer?
Maybe the movement to include creationism in science classrooms will learn the same lesson? Maybe they think that in a classroom no one will ask in depth questions like we do here at EvC, or in peer review for that matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2004 4:05 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2004 5:39 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 47 (87334)
02-18-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Loudmouth
02-18-2004 4:49 PM


Maybe the movement to include creationism in science classrooms will learn the same lesson? Maybe they think that in a classroom no one will ask in depth questions like we do here at EvC, or in peer review for that matter.
Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
We have discussed that. I would like to see creationism in the classroom. And you are right, they would probably get up and walk out when these questions came up. Wouldn't that be amusing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 02-18-2004 4:49 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 47 (87403)
02-18-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 3:16 PM


quote:
My original point about Berthault and his experiments were that he shows simply that in conditions of flowing water with particles of various size, segregation of particles, stratification, and lamination of layers occur spontaneously and almost simultaneously. Read his experiments.
I know. I have read Brethault. Several times. Joe is right. His work is irrelevant. There is no mystery to the formation of laminated sediments in sands. You have been duped into thinking that this is some kind of significant finding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 3:16 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 24 of 47 (87404)
02-18-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Lunkhead
02-18-2004 3:55 PM


Shocking!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Lunkhead, posted 02-18-2004 3:55 PM Lunkhead has not replied

  
Lunkhead
Member (Idle past 7335 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 25 of 47 (87449)
02-19-2004 8:44 AM


Why are you so concerned with only the Noachian flood layers? There are several other events that contribute to the totality of the strata. For those not familiar, there are over 400 verses in almost half the books of the Bible that speak directly about the creation of the earth, and most of them are NOT in Genesis. Many more are in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. Some of the phrases that are seen repeatedly are that He "stretched out the heavens" and "water poured from the vaults of the earth".
A few key things the Bible says:
1 The earth was originally covered with water "like a blanket"
2 The land rose up and the sea was gathered into one place (i.e. there was a single original continent)
3 Before it rained, water used to flow out of the ground every morning and water the whole surface of the ground.(Gen 2). (Hmm, I wonder what kind of sedimentation a daily flooding for 2000 years would cause?)
4 Noah's flood in the Summer and Fall
5 The retreat and drainage of Noah's flood during the Winter and Spring (including glaciation)
6 The implied breakup of Pangea into the present continents, during or possibly after Noah's flood
So, I don't understand why y'all evil-utionists are so bent on only the Noachian flood. But of course, you won't believe this either.
There is some very detailed and interesting info on some of this by Bernard Northrup (who I see Joe Meert has commented on in Northrup's papers):
http://www.ldolphin.org/rockrecord2.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/harmon1.html
http://www.sedin.org/PDFS/final125.pdf
LUnkHeaD

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 02-19-2004 9:55 AM Lunkhead has replied
 Message 28 by roxrkool, posted 02-19-2004 10:49 AM Lunkhead has not replied
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2004 10:51 AM Lunkhead has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 26 of 47 (87457)
02-19-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Lunkhead
02-19-2004 8:44 AM


quote:
There is some very detailed and interesting info on some of this by Bernard Northrup (who I see Joe Meert has commented on in Northrup's papers):
JM: Northrup's papers are very vague and Northrup is not a geologist. The combination is lethal for his writing. I also think you are missing the point. My questions listed previously ask for specific strata that are pre-flood, syn flood and post flood. So, how much of the global strata was deposited before the flood (or created before the flood)? How do you recognize these rocks? Where is the evidence for the onset of the global flood. What globally correlatable layers were syn flood (specifics please, I have plenty of vagaries)? How much of the geologic record is post-flood? Quantify and specify, please. You see, creationists thrive on non-specificity because the minute they specify, it bites them in the butt. So, have you got anything of use?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Lunkhead, posted 02-19-2004 8:44 AM Lunkhead has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Lunkhead, posted 02-19-2004 10:28 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Lunkhead
Member (Idle past 7335 days)
Posts: 15
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 27 of 47 (87463)
02-19-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Joe Meert
02-19-2004 9:55 AM


You obviously didn't read Northrup's papers. He is very specific about which layers are what.
LunKhEaD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 02-19-2004 9:55 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by roxrkool, posted 02-19-2004 11:09 AM Lunkhead has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 28 of 47 (87465)
02-19-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Lunkhead
02-19-2004 8:44 AM


Lunkhead writes:
Why are you so concerned with only the Noachian flood layers?
Because it was the biggest storm in the history of the planet... assuming the planet is 6,000 years old. It moved continents, carved the Grand Canyon, and built the mountains. Geology is concerned with the history of this planet, why shouldn't we be interested in finding the flood layers? Maybe because the lack of flood layers is a gaping black hole in the whole flood theory?
3 Before it rained, water used to flow out of the ground every morning and water the whole surface of the ground.(Gen 2).
So you're saying it never rained before the flood? If water flowed out of the ground and flooded the surface every day for 2000 years, where are those sediments? Point them out.
(Hmm, I wonder what kind of sedimentation a daily flooding for 2000 years would cause?)
Take a shot at it. What do you think you would see?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Lunkhead, posted 02-19-2004 8:44 AM Lunkhead has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 47 (87467)
02-19-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Lunkhead
02-19-2004 8:44 AM


Well, it seems to me, a non geologists that they are at least an attempt to give some connection between stratigraphy and the flood. However, even I can see that they are very far from "very detailed". They still don't actually point to the strata that are flood and not just the approximate time frame.
I'll wait for Joe to comment on them further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Lunkhead, posted 02-19-2004 8:44 AM Lunkhead has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 30 of 47 (87470)
02-19-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Lunkhead
02-19-2004 10:28 AM


According to Northrup:
Archean rocks are the result of the initial creation when all the world was underwater.
Proterozoic rocks are the result of massive drainage of the uplifting continents.
The flood is responsible for the Cambrian through about the Pennsylvanian.
Continental break-up starting in the Mid-Mesozoic, which results in glaciation from the Mesozoic to the Cenozoic.
yada, yada, yada...
This is specific in a creationist context, and apparently to you, but falls woefully short of what is required by mainstream scientists.
Northrup talks about flood deposits, tidal wave deposits, wind deposits, landslide deposits,... but fails to name a single one.
THAT is what we want to know. What FORMATIONS represent Northrup's tidal waves, and so on? Until creationists can do that, their flood theory won't be acknowledged by anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Lunkhead, posted 02-19-2004 10:28 AM Lunkhead has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Joe Meert, posted 02-19-2004 11:48 AM roxrkool 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