|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
First, there is nothing "religious" about the idea of a worldwide flood. It either really happened in real time and on this real planet or it didn't. As I said. Saying it isn't so over and over will not make it not so. The only people who say a worldwide flood occured do so on religious grounds. On edit: Oh and in case you were thinking otherwise, it has not escaped my notice that once again you have not addressed my point by point rebuttals of your YEC explanations of unconformaties. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-08-2005 10:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Saying it isn't so over and over will not make it not so. The only people who say a worldwide flood occured do so on religious grounds.
The motive might be religious, but the question itself--Was there a flood?--is scientific in nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
not Nuggin's idiotic caricatures. You know, for someone who gripes as much as you do about not being treated nicely...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
it's hard to combat something when you can't figure out what it is they are thinking and it just hits you as nonsense, and abusive at that. Doesn't encourage give and take to say the least. Or they'll give an example of something that does in fact occur -- somewhere -- without demonstrating any connection to the actual point in question. Jazz has been doing that with his stressed rocks bit. Sometimes someone like Nuggin will create total confusion by making up an absurd caricature that has nothing to do with anything. Here's what I see when I read this quote: "I don't understand what you are talking about, so therefore you much be attacking me, and that's not fair." Faith, you will never understand what we are talking about. You've stated as much yourself. You hold the Flood as a literal truth, and therefore discount everything that conflicts your world view. You are complaining that mathematicians are being aggressive to you because they keep using Calc and Trig, but you're saying up front that you only accept the numbers 3, 6 and 7.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
the question itself--Was there a flood?--is scientific in nature. With a definition that wide any question is scientific "in nature", including "is the earth flat?" Such questions fall under the category of "too trivial to be scientifically interesting." This is sort of like a junior high school science fair project where the student asks the question, "Can a bean plant survive without water?" Well no it can't. There is no need to do the "experiment" because though a scientific question, it is so trivial it ceases to be interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
With a definition that wide any question is scientific "in nature" I would disagree with the idea that any question is scientific in nature. Some are, some aren't. "Should I help my neighbor?" is not a scientific question. But "Was there a flood?" definitely is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
My point was that some questions are too trivial to be scientifically interesting. Questions that the scientific community has "settled" long ago such as the worldwide flood question just do not merit any further study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
One possible alternative explanation is that tectonic forces pushed up settled strata before the next layers were laid down on top of them over a relatively brief period of, say, years, or even less.
Well, except for the "brief period part", this is what Hutton said, so it is not an alternate explanation. Sorry for not being precise enough. The alternative explanation IS the brief period part.
How is this explanation consistent with a flood? Remember you have to get the lower layers laid down, lignified, then pushed up with the ends vertical, the vertical edge eroded to a horizontal plane in some cases, and upper layers laid down and lignified. Isn't the term "lithified," not "lignified?" I certainly don't see this occurring DURING the flood, but afterward. The idea is that the layers were laid down over some period of time by water, how long a time is not known but within years, including both the flood period and the time the flood took to recede afterward -- which period of receding would have included tidal action over the land areas. Yes, I am visualizing what you describe except that I have a worldwide flood in mind so I do picture damp sediments that took quite a long time to dry out and harden into rock -- though I would think that the sheer weight of the stack could accomplish hardening in a relatively short period of time. Thinking of the way the Grand Canyon area looks, as I said, I figure it COULD have happened the way I described.
the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace the entire stack because of its enormous weight.
No, it could not have happened this way and I believe someone has already explained to you why in another thread. Geologists can tell whether an intrusion was into air or into an existing layer by the crystalization structure at the interface. Look at the Grand Staircase diagram. Not sure you are addressing what I'm describing. The intrusion didn't even get into the strata of the Grand Canyon proper, only into the uncomformities at the very bottom, as can be seen on the diagram I linked (after you wrote this post I'm answering I understand, but I'll get to that eventually). All it seems to have done, besides intruding into those tilted strata at the bottom, is push the whole Grand Canyon area upward from underneath, including those uncomformities themselves, which I'm suggesting against your objections could have been tilted at that same time by that same force. How do you explain the neat layering of the overlying strata from the bottom unconformity all the way up to the Kaibab, following the hump and the slope to the north and yet maintaining that parallel layering as it did, if the uplift that caused the hump and probably the unconformity at the base as well, did not occur AFTER the entire stack was complete? I mean, there's no way neat parallel layers of loose sediments are going to lay themselves down over a big hump and a steep slope like that. They would wind up in a heap at the lowest part of the slope. That didn't happen. I can't imagine that geologists think anything different but then don't they have to agree that the uplifting force occurred after the strata were laid down? And isn't that a likely cause of the tilting of the uncomformity at the bottom too? Clearly they were laid down as fairly even horizontal deposits and THEN the upthrust from below pushed them into the hump-and-slope configuration. And it seems to me that same force would have created the uncomformities at the bottom at the same time. Sorry I know I keep repeating myself but I've had the experience so often here of saying something that seems obvious to me but others misread that I feel it's necessary.
Also, the intrusion has been eroded to a horizontal plane before the deposition of the upper layers. How do you explain that, flood wise? I figure the flood had receded by this point for starters. The stack was built by it, but we are now talking about post-flood effects. If the force from beneath occurred after the entire stack was built, which is the idea I am pursuing here, the weight of the upper part of the stack could simply have provided a counterforce that would in effect shear off the top of the uncomformity, perhaps at the junction between two different particular kinds of sediments that allowed for particularly mobile slippage between the two. Where would the sheared off corners go? I guess they'd form rubble somewhere in the vicinity of the uncomformity, under the bottom layer (The Tapeats? I keep printing out stuff on these things but it's hard to keep track of. I need a better file system). Even the fact that the layers of the uncomformity are in two separate sections, separately uptilted broken segments of the same layers, suggests that they enountered a counterforce from above. The lowest layers of both are identical. The next layers above are identical -- the red section into which the magma from below has intruded -- etc. They were once the same horizontal strata until the force from beneath tilted them. (Is this the way the Great Uncomformity appears everywhere? Haven't been able to track it down yet). But if there had been no layers above, why wouldn't the whole stack have uptilted? Why sections? I hope this is clear.
The layers must have been still relatively soft as they maintain their even horizontal configuration over the entire slope caused by this force from underneath,
Again you are repeating claims that have been pointed out to you as being not consistent with geological science. Layers do no deform this way when they are "relatively soft". Lignified (rock) layers deform this way. I'm simply trying to account for the fact that the many layers above the unconformity at the bottom show such a neat parallel structure, although they cover an enormous distance over that hump and slope created by the uplifting force from beneath. If that is possible after lithification, fine, it doesn't affect the point. The point, again, is to explain this DRAPING effect of the entire stack of layers over this hump and down this slope in such neat parallel form, which is seen on that diagram I linked. Seems to me that layers couldn't form so neatly over hills and dales. They had to have been horizontal originally, and that being the case, the hump was created after they were all in place, and that being the case, there's this other question about how they draped so neatly and stayed so parallel if they were solidly lithified -- which as I said, may be possible as Jazz claims though it seems unlikely to my untutored imagination just looking at it -- you tell me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Isn't the term "lithified," not "lignified?"
Yes, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My point was that some questions are too trivial to be scientifically interesting. Questions that the scientific community has "settled" long ago such as the worldwide flood question just do not merit any further study. Fine, then your prejudice factor is so rigid and closed-minded you really should not be involved in any discussions about it. My bias is just as solid but YECs do not have an established body of knowledge such as those on your side claim to have, and being up against opinion as solidly lithified as yours is hard enough without the added contempt of your considering the whole discussion beneath you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Ok your main argument here seems to concern deformation of horizontal layers. Of course the deformation occured after the layers were laid down. Who had said otherwise? How is this a problem for OE geology? It isn't. It is a problem for flood geology, however, because all of those layers could not have been laid down, pushed up, sometimes eroded again, more layers, etc within the time frame of the flood AND the time to the present day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
It is not contempt to say something is not scientifically interesting. If you can't avoid taking things personally you shouldn't be on a debate board.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First question. In your alleged flood, how is sandstone formed?
From Message 56 This message has been edited by jar, 09-08-2005 10:25 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This exact same issue was brought up weeks ago.
There comes a time when it is appropriate to stop going over the same ground and stick with the conclusion until new information has been introduced. It is now about 2 centuries ago that early geologists looked at all the available data and concluded solidly that a big, once-over, world-wide flood could not have happened. Since then all the data continues to support that conclusion. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING new has been introduced. Every single argument that you have brought forward is old, not based on a real knowledge of the facts and has been examined at some time before, many decades ago. It is not closed minded to point out to you that you know little of the subject and have arguments that are decades and centuries buried. If there are more productive lines of research engage in that is where the effort is spent. When YEC's have a body of knowledge of any kind they can bring it to bear on the question and then will get the attention of geologists. However, the kind of nonsense that is promulgated by them means it will take some heavy duty convincing before they are listened to. Remember the boy who cried wolf? The moon is not made of green cheese. My mind is rock hard rigid on that. It is closed minded. Any discussion to the contrary is beneath me. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-08-2005 11:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
The moon is not made of green cheese. I always thought it looked more like white chedder anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024