Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata

Very poor argumentation to assume your opponents' motivations. I'm sure it is comfortable to have no uncertainties about why your opponents believe as they believe of course, but it is very bad debate form. As I tried to explain, those who trust the Bible REALLY REALLY trust it. We KNOW that it's true and we KNOW that science must be in accord with it or there is an error in science. We are looking for explanations that verify it. Those that appear not to are in error. I believe you do a very similar kind of thinking. You are convinced that evolution is true and you look for explanations that verify it. I don't think you think through these questions all that carefully yourselves. You are content if you find explanations that appear to confirm your view. It is from looking at the highway cuts and the pictures of strata and fossils that I find the flood theory very plausible, and I also find the idea of slow buildup highly incredible from the same observations.Want the imprimatur of science? Without Biblical assumptions science would never have developed in the West. We might have continued with the speculations of "natural philosophy" but would never have come to the practical science we have today. It was the ideas of a rational God and a lawful universe, ideas with no other source than the Bible, that motivated the first experimental scientists. A Biblical worldview is a solidly rational and logical worldview. Science still proceeds on the same foundations only they are now denied.The flood happened. HOW it happened is speculative. But then certainly so is evolution.

I operate from the view of the Bible as inspired by God in all its parts, not "written by men" except in the most literal sense that it was men who understood what God said to them and put it down in writing. There is no problem "giving credence" to actual revelation from the mouth of God over the creation itself about which knowledge is always subject to error. You don't have to agree with my view of the Bible to answer your own question if you at least admit that your opponent may not share your view of the Bible and take it into account in your thinking. The scientific method would never have arisen without the assumptions of an orderly universe received through the revelation of the Bible. That is why the West was so successful at empirical science before the rest of the world caught on to the same assumptions -- and then arrogantly divorced them from their source.

That is quite true. I'm for taking Christian children out of the public schools for this reason. No need to fight the evolutionists. Let them have the public schools, which are getting worse all the time anyway. Time to build up a network of Christian schools with the rigorous training in thinking Christianity once produced in the West that is now dead. There are signs we are getting back to it. Teach them both evolutionism and creationism as well as all the empirical methods and all the scientific facts you guys bring up and the ability to think through them logically. Yes, ID doesn't cut it.

Yes, you all have considerable doubt, but if you are talking with a creationist you have to acknowledge the creationist's beliefs or the whole discussion is hopeless from the getgo."Deeper discussion?" I suppose you can have that with people who can defend the Flood better than I can.

It is observation, not subjective opinion. About 90% of this conversation is hampered by such confusions on your side. You assume personal belief because that's how you view creationists. You know nothing about me. I believed in evolution for most of my life. You have to stick to the actual discussion.Just witnessing the destructive effects of normal processes as we encounter them all the time everywhere on earth, the idea that such neat parallel layers could have built up over great lengths of time makes no sense. Underwater OK. But not on dry land. But I'm just repeating myself again. The reason I repeat myself? I don't think anybody has actually seen what I'm getting at. Many say they see it, so I can't say anything back at that point. I don't rely on faith for the observation of the strata, only for the knowledge that there was indeed a worldwide Flood and that God created all life at once. Science STARTS at that point for a creationist.

I think you need to distinguish between your personal beliefs and the actual facts.You could reasonably say "I have no doubt that a worldwide flood occurred" - since tha tonly deals with your personal views.You cannot reasonably say that "There is no doubt that a worldwide Flood occurred" - since that claims that there is clear proof of the Flood. And that is false. You would be closer to the truth to state that "there is no doubt that a worldwide Flood did NOT occur"

quote:

---

It is observation, not subjective opinion. About 90% of this conversation is hampered by such confusions on your side. You assume personal belief because that's how you view creationists. You know nothing about me. I believed in evolution for most of my life. You have to stick to the actual discussion.

---

Well, let's look at what you said in another message: So, the Bible is true, no matter what. If the evidence goes against what the Bible says the evidence is wrong. This all pins on this absolute trust, otherwise known as faith. Why should science rely on this faith instead of taking the evidence at face value? If there is no evidence for a global flood, and if all of the evidence argues against it, then why assume that a global flood occured?

quote:

---

Just witnessing the destructive effects of normal processes as we encounter them all the time everywhere on earth, the idea that such neat parallel layers could have built up over great lengths of time makes no sense.

---

But it does make sense. Where does the sediment go when these destructive events occur? Into valleys and low places where erosion occurs slowly. What happens when you get thick layers of sediment? The bottom layers lithify making them more difficult to erode. It makes complete sense.

If you go back and read the posts just after my Message 199 that you replied to you'll see that the suggestion was to take this side of the discussion to another thread. There's a good reason for this, two reasons, actually.The first reason is that the objection that science is wrong and the Bible is right can be made in any of the science forums. We don't want to have the same discussion spread across multiple forums, and so the science forums are usually confined to considering the issues from a scientific perspective.The second reason is why EvC Forum exists. Creationists claim that Creationism is every bit as much science as evolution, and that it deserves representation in science class. Creationism's status as legitimate science is the primary question that this site was created to consider. Just as Creationists would never present religious or Biblical arguments to school boards considering whether to include Creation Science in the curriculum, one should never raise such arguments in the science forums of EvC Forum. To do so is to concede the religious nature of the theory and lose the debate before it is even begun.There are four forums where it would be appropriate to argue the issues from the religious or Biblical perspective:

• [forum=-1]
• [forum=-4]
• [forum=-6]
• [forum=-11]

If you (or anyone) like, you could propose this topic for one of these forums.--Percy

Yes, I'm a catastrophist and a YEC. But that's a silly idea that "physical laws" don't operate the same way. Physical laws are physical laws, but there may have been different conditions on the planet for them to operate on. Exactly, and creationists oppose it. I had just said the world LOOKS like it was drowned in a huge flood. He produced that picture to prove that it doesn't, but it's exactly the sort of picture that DOES prove it to me. All that horizontal stratification could not have been produced on dry land. And basically all he said was that it LOOKS differnt to him, but then his proof had nothing to do with how it looks -- he referred to things one can't see from such a picture, such as the composition of the strata. Taking that post to prove anything shows that the claims to objectivity and rationality and knowledge of evidence around here are a bit shaky. I looked through them, but again, and again, and again, I am not interested in trying to defend the Flood beyond answering whatever I am able to answer, which isn't a lot. But my opinion is very simple and based on observation. If this is as far as the discussion can go, fine, it's over. The only relevant answers have had to do with the length of time individual strata supposedly must have taken to build up, very few posts in this entire thread actually, and there is no reason to think that people who know more than I do can't answer those claims either, even though I can't.I don't care to prove the Flood as much as to show that the geo column could't have built up on dry land over millions of years the way it is claimed. Sediments in somebody's back yard don't do it, sorry. When I say look at the straight layers of the Grand Canyon, then someobody answers OH but that was under water. But there are just as straight layers elsewhere that WEREN'T formed under water, according to you guys, I believe. If it was all formed under water then we have a good basis for a FLood.But then somebody comes along and says such and a such a stratum could NOT have formed under water. So are there such strata in teh Grand Canyon? I don't know.I just keep repeating msyelf, it is true. There is nothing more to say. There were many examples of specific instances of ongoing deposition but none of them demonstrate the depth of the geo column strata. Erosion at the normal rate would have prevented flat horizontal layers from forming. Erosion at the normal rate produces the Grand Canyon itself, not its layers but the gash through it. Many thin layers in a river suggest that it must have taken a gigantic "river" to produce the gigantic strata, and not a river, which wouldn't build them up so neatly and horizontally.Never mind. I'm just repeating myself again and again. Blah blah blah. Bye for now.

quote:

---

All that horizontal stratification could not have been produced on dry land.

---

All of that horizontal stratification could not have been produced underwater either. This is the problem. Lithified sand dunes, complete with scorpion tracks, could not have been produced underwater. We find these types of horizontal stratifications in between layers that were produced underwater. This requires two separate "floods". We also have areas that require long time periods, such as the development of soil (sub-aerial) and limestone (sub-aquatic).

quote:

---

I had just said the world LOOKS like it was drowned in a huge flood.

---

If you are open-minded, what would falsify this theory? What evidence would falsify a single flood creating the geologic column as we see it today?

Yes you got it almost! Instead of "gigantic river" use "ocean". The GC used to be an ocean during the time that the layers it consists of were deposited. Then that ocean floor was uplifted and now it exposed to erosion.Also. We know that it can build them neatly and horizontally because sediment that goes into the oceans today do that. No guesswork necessary, just an big ocean drill. How about these?:The Atlantic Ocean
The Pacific Ocean
The Gulf Of Mexico
The Indian Ocean
The Sahara DesertClose to where I live:The Rio Grande Valley
The Rio Grande River
Elephant Butte LakeAll these places have neat new layers of sediment being deposited in them all the time. We can see this happening today! Yes. Unless you are in a vally, basin, ocean, lake, river, gulf, etc. Flat stuff here forms all the time and we can watch it form with our own eyes. Of course it does now that the area around the GC is not an ocean. Back when that area was a big ocean there was negative erosion going on. More stuff was falling into the ocean then was being taken out of it. THis makes a lot of sense since there are not many processes that take stuff out of oceans.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

OK, I should have ignored that segment then. It wasn't taken to another thread though, and I only intended to answer to the extent of clarifying my own Biblical assumptions for the sake of THIS argument, as it seems some have false assumptions ABOUT my assumptions. I'm not interested in arguing with other assumptions at the moment however, so I will simply say no more on the topic here. Yes, but again, I was merely giving my own Biblical assumptions which underlie any claims about the geo column etc that I make on this thread. In other words the topic hasn't changed. I am merely saying that if my opponents want to deal with my position fairly they have to recognize my assumptions fairly, but it appears that some have wrong ideas about my assumptions. If they want to challenge my assumptions then they can take that to another thread, but I probably won't follow as I'm not interested in debating my assumptions, merely having them accurately represented. Sorry if I went too far into their side argument though. I didn't. And you are wrong about the supposed "religious nature of the debate." Starting assumptions or premises are NOT the debate. They are not what is being proved. They are the point from which one proceeds and that is perfectly legitimate in a scientific discussion. Wrong assumptions/premises were being imputed to me so I corrected them. I have not argued for my assumptions, merely stated them. All I have argued from is my OBSERVATION of the way the geo column LOOKS in all the photos and diagrams. That's science. It may not be science at the level you would prefer on this forum, but it is certainly science. Again, I am not interested in debating those topics, merely clarifying my premises. If challenging my premises is what others want to do, I agree they'd have to take it to another thread.

OK. ALL your examples where such layers do form are underwater. The ocean examples fit fine with the Flood theory. But how close do they parallel the geo column in distinct layerings and composition by the way?The river examples I'd have to hear more about. It is very hard to see how a mere river could build up anything to the depths in the Geo column, and certainly not over the huge swaths of territory parts of the geo column are found intact.So what are you saying? NONE of the extant strata of the Geo Column were built up on dry land?AND -- do all the scientists here or anywhere agree with what you have said in this post?AND -- didn't someone here say that some of the layers of the GC could not have been built up under water?

Great. YOU were the one who said some of the strata could not have been produced underwater. Are you talking about the Grand Canyon strata? I don't know how to answer scorpion tracks and so on but that's why I'm not debating the Flood. Many creationists may have answers that I don't have.At the moment I'm simply concentrating on how such neat layers could have built up over graet lengths of time on dry land. That observation remains, scorpion tracks or no scorpion tracks. I still think normal weathering processes would have to prohibit such neat straight build up to such depths over such large swaths of geography.I did read through a few geology websites and saved some for further study, but what I'd really like to see I haven't been able to find. Is there such a thing for instance as diagrams of the geo column in various parts of the world illustrating the different sediments and fossil contents of the different layers from top to bottom? In fact every time somebody disputes me here it would help me a lot of they had pictures or diagrams to illustrate what they are saying. Perhaps they simply aren't available. Many things that have been said call it into question but I'm not expert enough to investigate the truth of the claims either to prove or disprove them. They raise problems but are not necessarily definitive falsification. Most of the objections are very local and very specific. The overall column, however, with its neat straight strata, everywhere on earth, continues overwhelmingly to suggest formation in water, and at the very least continues to defy explanation on any slow-buildup theory, especially OUTSIDE of water.HOWEVER, you are changing the subject here. My answer was to Post #117 and it was very apt. He didn't do a very creditable job of answering me, as I explained. I said it looked like the geo column was formed underwater and he produced a photo that is exactly what I think looks like it was formed underwater, while merely saying it didn't look that way to him, and then giving an example of something that couldn't be seen in the photo in any case, the finer sedimentary layers within the strata. Seems to me you might have acknowledged that his answer wasn't any kind of proof of anything.[Edit to remove slightly snide remark]This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2005 03:29 PM

Distinct layers happen because certain types of sediment fall out at different times in the same depositional environment. Lets take an ocean for example. Near the shore, larger particles are going to fall out first once they hit the water.Smaller particles will fall out in deeper, calmer oceans farther from the coast where the tide with keep pushing them around. So near the coast you get a lot of sandstone and in deeper ocean you get siltstone or mudstone. Now lets say sea level rises. Now what was once shallow ocean is now deep ocean. Now where once sand was falling out only silt is falling out so you get siltstone on top of sandstone.Add to this life. Coral reefs and such only exist in certain depths of the ocean. Change this depth and the reef moves. In our example with the sea level rising, the reef would now be too deep for life so then you would have limestone being covered by siltstone. Lower the sea level and it would go back to depositing limestone. Drop sea level further and now it is sandstone on top of limestone on top of siltstone on top of limestone. Well, no river will span the top to the bottom of the geo column. In fact, I am willing to bet that there is not one single place in the world where the column can be accounted for by one single depositional environment. What it does give you though is a great place to build up think conglomerates as well as providing finer material for floodplains which can be a significant portion of the geo column at a location of a current or ancient river. A river is ONE place where we can watch lots of sedimentation happen today. No one is claiming that all sediment is created by river systems. Most sediment is aquatic though or related to aquatic environments like evaporites. No I am not saying that. Alluvial fans are not aquatic. Evaporites are not aquatic. Eolian deposits are not aquatic. Tar pits, mud slides, dry land basins, all can attest for sedimentation that does not happen in water. These are rarer though because anything deposited on land will be more likely to make it to water at some point. Water is the great eroder so we should expect most deposits to eventually end up in water. The scientists that taught me geology did and those that provided the material for my geology books. Yes. Take the above scenario and this time drop sea level until what was once under water is now shallow land like a beach. Now wind will act upon it creating dunes and animals can walk across it creating tracks. When sea level rises again this goes back underwater and get preserved by the ocean sediments burying it like it did the others.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show