Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

A set of layers tend to deform as a group due to the tectonic activity of the region. A group of layers that become deformed probably will no longer be in their original position. Although they will probably remain parallel with respect to each other, they mostly likely will no longer be parallel to the horizontal. Layers that are still horizontal probably have little to no effects of strain because they are in the same position they were deposited. Different violence of tectonic forces. Different structure of the rock. Some sedimentary rock will fault easier leaving jagged surfaces. Others may not fault as much due to the type of rock. Some rock may deform deeper where pressure prevents faulting even if the rock is the same. Yes. In the lab. We know it was totally lithified because the entire matrix strains. That is what lithified means; the rock is a complete matrix. As I said before, in some cases rock that was not lithified has been deformed and it shows some very weird and rare characteristics not indicative of normal strain. Sure. Mainstream geology does not forego localized rapid sedimentation. Kind of off the point though. It is a fact. Most deformation happens to lithified rock. Probably not but I was correcting your error when you said that sediments had to be soft when they deform. Sediments CAN deform when soft but most WERE NOT soft when they did deform. I wish I could remember the exactly but I know it looked funny. If you didn't know better you could almost say it looked like it was deposited that way. I think you diagnose it mostly by looking at it on the micro scale. Certainly little if no strain is present. Other types of deformation always exhibit strain or faulting.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-25-2005 03:46 PM

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I'm usually just asking what you mean, I simply want to understand what you are saying when you've only given a brief assertion of something without explaining it. I'm not asking for a thesis. Nevertheless I do enjoy the links when I have time to spend on them. The last batch are nice.As for the rest, you were talking down to me. Still are. You don't need to discuss any of this with me but if you intend to I don't appreciate the personal comments. My motivations are none of your or anybody's business. Perhaps teachers get into the habit of assessing their young students' motivations. I am not a young student. If you want to discuss, leave the personal remarks out of it and deal with the communications themselves. If you find them unsupportable for whatever reason, just exit the thread and keep the personal remarks to yourself.

Well that was informative but I still don't know how the area deerbreh posted about in Maryland got such nice curved strata as shown on the diagrams at the link he posted somewhere back there. And you missed my point about the parallel strata over the Grand Canyon, also shown at a link I posted. The whole stack that is the wall of the Grand Canyon follows the curve of the mound or hump to the north of the canyon that then slopes downward and curves again to horizontal, and according to the diagrams the strata remain neatly parallel and simply follow the curve of the mound and the slope without a break. Should I expect to see strain in the rock along those curves or not?

I think I understand your question now.You should expect to see strain if the reason the layers are curved is because it was uplifted. I am pretty sure that it might have just been deposited that way if the curve is gentle enough over a wide enough area. The kind of curves we talk about when tectonics are involved are the ones that make rock layers look more like sine waves rather than gentle slopes. Lots of faulting, intrusion, etc. If that is missing from that area then I expect you wouldn't find any strain. Even if it was due to tectonics the strain would probably be minimal if the curve is not too drastic.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Oh balderdash. No one is talking down to you. And it wasn't personal. I merely inferred from what you said that you weren't particularly motivated to learn anything that would challenge your YEC assumptions. It was a fair appraisal based on the way you have reacted to information I and other posters have provided. You have stated it outright yourself several times that YEC is where you stand and there is no evidence that could change that. In fact when I asked you to provide a scenario where you would accept the ToE and OE you did not respond.

I disagree that I'm unwilling to learn. I don't think that is what any of this is about. And your analysis of my supposed unwillingness to learn IS personal and unwelcome. However, I will drop it.Having spent the first half of my life having faith in the ToE with all its ramifications and accoutrements, though attempts to find convincing proof of it were frustratingly unsuccessful, there is not much that could ever persuade me back to it. Probably the only thing that might would be a truly convincing demonstration that the book of Genesis allows for the possibility.{Edit: But even with the possibility open I'm not sure there's anything on the ToE side that could ever convince me at this point. I know too well by now that the whole thing is an edifice built on interpretation and nothing else, and that the whole creationist-evolutionist flap is a war between plausible interpretations, so that there simply is not and never will be any kind of evidence that will not be subject to somebody's more convincing reinterpretation of it.I will I hope go on to apply this reasoning to the pictures you posted of unconformities. Hutton decided they must have taken a long time to form. I'm not so sure and he can't prove it and neither will I be able to prove whatever interpretation God allows me to come up with.}This message has been edited by Faith, 08-25-2005 08:15 PM

No amount of fact or reason will resolve this. His beliefs are his BELIEFS. If someone believes that red is green, you can say all you want, you can point to paint cans and crayons, it's not going to change a thing.He doesn't want you to answer his questions. That's evident from the fact that when people explain something clearly, his response is a total denial and a claim that you are "talking down to him".The entire study of geology is on one side of this argument and an old book is on the other side.

That is where you are wrong and I already explained why. Intrusions that affect a bottom layer yet not a top have a specific order and time. I might also mention that there is a huge difference in PHYSICAL COMPOSITION, of rock formed by pushing out into the sea, and into the air, and cooling rapidly, and cooling quickly.See that's where your "it's all about physical properties" comes back around to bit you in the ass. What 's the difference between Gabbro and Basalt? For starters. It's also not the difficult to fly the space shuttle, do brain surgery, run a marathon, and figure out the full number of pi.Now wake up, get out of your house, and start looking at the rocks and rock formations you actually have to deal with. That is funny as hell. I didn't realize all footprints indicated that the creatures were running.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This appears to be a patent lie. I gave you links to the history and principles used in determining relative age which are used in situations like unconformities.Either prove this statement with counterevidence to the evidence I already gave you, or admit you have willfully avoided looking at evidence in order to repeat claims that have been challenged and overthrown.Or do the proper thing and go back to the beginning and start reading the information given to you.These are not just lies you are making, but strawmen and ad hominem attacks. For someone who consistently whines about being treated with respect, you sure have a funny way of showing respect to others.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is not a science thread, holmes. I don't think I'm obliged to treat it as if it were.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-26-2005 08:43 AM

Actually, in clarification I believe Percy did say that issues, even scientific ones, still needed to be addressed per the forum guidelines in the non-science fora. The only difference is that here you can say, "I don't believe that unconformities can ONLY happen a certain way because of my religion."

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Well of course he could not prove it since he died in 1797. The science of geology has made a few advances since then. As an aside, you might be interested to know that James Hutton was a devout Christian and he actually thought that belief in an old earth strengthened his faith in God. Imagine that. There is a nice essay on Hutton's belief in Christianity here:
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/hutton.htmYou kind of missed some of the point about unconformities, however. It isn't a question of how old they are that should give you pause. You were claiming that all of the strata were laid down before any uplifting or intrusions occurred. The presence of various kinds of unconformaties and particularly angular unconformaties with many horizontal layers above them - sometimes hundreds of feet thick-disprove that notion. You will have to come up with a different scenario as to how the strata were laid down. It could not have happened during and shortly after the flood, whatever age you want to accept for the unconformaties. Note that I am not saying that age of the strata isn't still a problem for YEC.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-26-2005 09:52 AM

"Hutton" stands for geologists. Don't jump the gun. I haven't gotten back to this yet. Those old Christians had a lot of indefensible ideas, including bizarre ideas about how the flood might have happened. I GOT the point about the unconformities. I've thought about it before. Still thinking. Hang in there.

This is an evasion on your part, Faith. I told you what would convince me and other OE advocates that our timeline was way off and thus call into question the whole ToE - finding convincing evidence for coexistence of modern man and T. Rex. Now you might say that this is too high a standard, but it isn't if you really believe in the Biblical account of YEC. After all, if man and the animals were all created in the same week, of course man and T. Rex lived at the same time. Of all of the people and dinosaurs that died during the flood, there should be at least ONE incontrovertible example of a modern man fossil with a dinosaur fossil in one of the "older" layers. So find that and you will have made me a believer in YEC. I would have no choice. See Faith, I am not afraid of what the data might show because I have a lot of confidence in what the data do show. So - what evidence would convince you that the earth is old, Faith? Are you afraid to say it because somebody might produce it?By the way, just so you know my belief in ToE and OE is not the result of indoctrination - unlike you I was a firm believer in YEC up to the time I was an undergraduate sophomore. It was my understanding of the ToE as an adult that changed my mind. It was my belief as a child in YEC that I left behind.

This is a very telling statement and is another illustration of the philosophical box you are in, Faith. Hutton was born, lived, worked, and died in the 18th century. His understanding is no more representative of modern geology than Pasteur's understanding is of modern medicine or Newton's is of modern physics. Can you imagine if doctors had to practice medicine with only what Pasteur knew? Come on, Faith, you know better than that. Hutton was right about some things just as Pasteur and Newton were right about some things but geology, medicine and physics are light years beyond those three fine scientists.