Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Creationism Road Trip
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 316 of 409 (680727)
11-20-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Boof
11-20-2012 10:38 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
I emphasize "the entire geological column" in opposition to the notions that locate the Flood in a particular layer -- or "time period" as most geologists think of it. The point is that it either made all the layers or it made none, it wouldn't have made a particular layer in the middle of the stack when all the other layers were obviously (yes, I think so) formed by identical means. And as I believe I also said, I think of the Grand Canyon stack as the best representative of it, recognizing however that various versions of the stack occur around the world. That's all I mean, I don't get into DEFINING it beyond that.
Try imagining a worldwide Flood. There's nothing magical about it.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 10:38 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 11:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 360 by Taq, posted 11-21-2012 11:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 317 of 409 (680728)
11-20-2012 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
11-20-2012 10:53 PM


The flood and the geological column
Thanks for the response Faith.
Faith writes:
I emphasize "the entire geological column" in opposition to the notions that locate the Flood in a particular layer -- or "time period" as most geologists think of it. The point is that it either made all the layers or it made none...
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km). How do I work out which are a part of the 'geological column' and which aren't? Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column. Are high grade schists? What about shales? Are tilted layers part of the column? What are the determining factors for what is in or out?
Edited by Boof, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 12:40 AM Boof has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(5)
Message 318 of 409 (680730)
11-21-2012 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Faith
11-20-2012 10:13 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
It’s an ordinary English word that says well enough what I mean; there’s no need to insist on a particular technical meaning of it.
Yes there is. You are dealing with scientists here, and we insist on precise definitions. Sloppy thinking and sloppy definitions may be accepted in religious apologetics, but perhaps you should keep them there. Science has no place for them.
Dictionaries normally include all meanings for a word. In almost all cases only one of those meanings is correct for a given situation.
When you say "dissolved" the normal meaning would be what sugar or salt does when exposed to water--"to cause to pass into solution."
Now rock isn't going to do that very easily. Most rock isn't going to do that at all.
I offered you the "soil liquifaction" as a meaning more closely associated with flooding and downhill movement of soils.
But you seem to reject that in favor of all meanings of "dissolve."
You made this mess, you better figure a way to straighten it out.
Trying to play games with definitions, as creationists are often forced to do, just isn't going to cut it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 12:43 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 319 of 409 (680731)
11-21-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Boof
11-20-2012 11:20 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km).
What do you mean "show a burial depth of" that many kilometers when you have found them within a layer of the geological column -- the layers, the strata -- which as far as I am aware doesn't go anywhere near that deep? You mean apparently that they had to have been FORMED at that depth and then somehow got into the higher layer and I just keep wanting to say "So?"
How do I work out which are a part of the 'geological column' and which aren't?
You are hanging a lot on how they were formed which apparently means to you that they COULDN'T be in the layer, but there they are. How do YOU explain their being there if there are dire consequences to their getting there which you suggested earlier? And as far as I know they don't occur in the Grand Canyon.
If they did my first thought would be that they got carried there along with the rest of the stuff in that layer within a current of the Flood waters. That is, they pre-existed the Flood and merely got moved from one place to another.
Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column.
That was my understanding of your saying they could only be formed at an enormous depth, far far below any of the strata as I understand it. I still haven't grasped your question because it seems to me that if they are found on the surface at all you have just as much of a problem explaining that as a Floodist would.
Are high grade schists? What about shales? Are tilted layers part of the column? What are the determining factors for what is in or out?
My argument about the Flood is almost completely based on the Grand Canyon area, which I think can be argued to show that it had to have been formed in the Flood, first the laying down of the strata which cover hundreds of square miles horizontally, and originally reached at least two miles deep; then the cutting of the canyon and other events that occurred to bring that about. We haven't even touched on the various aspects of that favorite argument of mine because of all the objections and changes of subject that have been raised here. Not that I'm complaining, that's just the name of the game, the point is only that I've worked on this for some time, it's not just a wild guess.
In other words I'm not arguing about the entire field of geology, I'm focused on one area I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about.
Jar asked me about the Vishnu schist and I do have an explanation for that based on my understanding of the geological history of the canyon from a Floodist point of view. If you're going to generalize about "high grade schists" in any other context I don't see the relevance to my particular focus.
There are shales among the layers, lithified clay. The layers are all lithified sediments of one sort or another, clay/shale, sand/sandstone, calcium carbonate grains, including sea organisms/limestone, (even across the world the coccoliths of the chalk cliffs of Dover are also part of the geological column, which are also apparently a layer between other layers -- layering itself is what suggests deposition by the Flood).
So I understand all the various sediments, clays, sands, grains and whatnot to have been deposited by the Flood waters, all of them, then lithified over time, much of that due to the weight of the stack above.
Schists undergo more than mere lithification, it takes heat to form them. I don't see any schists higher than the Vishnu schist in the Grand Canyon which I've explained in terms of the heat and force from the volcano that erupted beneath the canyon after all the layers were in place, in conjunction with the weight of the whole column above, at least two miles in depth before the canyon was cut, and most likely tectonic force as well, which creationists believe occurred in conjunction with the Flood, even in conjunction with the volcanic activity which is also understood to have occurred in conjunction with the Flood.
By tilting, if you mean the unconformity at the bottom of the canyon, that can be explained as the result of the force from the volcano, perhaps in conjunction with a lateral tectonic force, resisted by the weight of the column above, which I've argued at length on my blog using a really nice illustration from Lyell to make the point. The canyon is known for its relatively neatly horizontal strata overall except for a mild sloping. Tilting occurs more in other places the column occurs. Tectonic effect usually, or volcanism in some cases.
Oh, and also, the scientist Prothero in the Road Trip film seemed to think the Horseshoe Bend curve of the river would defeat the idea of the Flood but that's really silly. Such meanders are a natural formation involving differences between speed and pressure between the flow at the edges of the water, which could just as well occur after the receding Flood waters had settled down to the river running through the canyon.
If I found this kind of rock in a layer as you suggest, what SHOULD I think? It's certainly not 45 km deep, so you tell ME how it got there.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 11:20 PM Boof has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 1:31 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 320 of 409 (680732)
11-21-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by Coyote
11-21-2012 12:28 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
I'm not a scientist, Coyote, and although I've done a lot of reading in order to grasp the concepts involved in the arguments that most preoccupy me, I'll never meet your standard, so if nonscientists are not going to be allowed to use ordinary English to convey perfectly reasonable ideas about the physical world, that even scientists understand, who presumably also speak ordinary English, we should be told we aren't allowed to post here at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2012 12:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(2)
Message 321 of 409 (680734)
11-21-2012 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Faith
11-21-2012 12:40 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Me writes:
OK, so I'm a creationist geologist out looking at some rock layers. Within these layers I find some high grade metamorphic rocks (like eclogites or maybe granulites which show burial depths of 20-30km).
What do you mean "show a burial depth of" that many kilometers when you have found them within a layer of the geological column -- the layers, the strata -- which as far as I am aware doesn't go anywhere near that deep? You mean apparently that they had to have been FORMED at that depth and then somehow got into the higher layer and I just keep wanting to say "So?"
Do you know what a metamorphic rock is Faith? A metamorphic rock is a rock which has had its initial mineralogy altered due to being exposed to high pressure and/or temperature. The rocks I am talking about were not formed at depth - they were formed at the Earth's surface. Some of them even have fossils in them, or cross bedding. But they also have minerals in them which only form under high pressures, indicating they have been buried to depths of 35km. Are these rocks part of your 'Geological column'? What about the eclogites then - how would I distinguish?
Me writes:
Is there some criteria? When I asked you about eclogites before you said they weren't part of the geological column.
I still haven't grasped your question because it seems to me that if they are found on the surface at all you have just as much of a problem explaining that as a Floodist would.
Not really, because if I want to exhume a rock from 35km depth to its current position I can use the mechanism of plate tectonics and erosion. The floodists have no mechanism, plus they have these rocks rising from those depths in only 4000 years. As I mentioned before under these timescales you have massive problems with depressurisation melting, which is not a problem under known geological timescales.
My argument about the Flood is almost completely based on the Grand Canyon area
Which you have been shown to have completely misunderstood. If you can’t understand the geology of the Grand Canyon, how can you apply your knowledge to the rest of the world? Yet you have the gall to criticise professionals who study rocks for a living. Take the word of those who have looked at rocks all around the world: THE FLOOD DOESN’T MAKE SENSE.
I find it interesting and encouraging that you are asking questions about DNA and genetics. Maybe you should do the same with geology — start going through Dr Adequate’s Introduction to Geology thread and start asking questions.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 12:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Boof has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 322 of 409 (680736)
11-21-2012 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Boof
11-21-2012 1:31 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
The miscommunication here is absolutely beyond my ability to figure out, so I have to abandon this discussion completely. You are making no sense whatever.
What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it and all the rank-pulling you do isn't going to change my mind, and that's all you're doing, pulling rank.
I know a great deal about genetics, especially population genetics, I'd just like to get a better picture of some specifics about DNA, I'd like to be able to visualize things like "junk DNA" for instance.
I've already shown more than once in this thread that I understand how schist is formed, but you either missed that or just like to pretend I haven't. I've also been following Dr. A's geology course since its beginning and commented on it at my blog, also mentioned it here more than once. I'd already read up on the material he's covered to this point, years ago by now, but I think he's done a very good job of pulling it all together and I've enjoyed it. Of course I'm going to have arguments with his old earth stuff but most of the material hasn't even touched on that, as it really doesn't have to.
So you can stop your rank-pulling on that score too.
Creationists certainly do take into account tectonics and erosion, a lot of the arguments for the Flood make much of both.
I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, I actively reject the ridiculous time scale explanation of how a stack of sediments formed that so clearly all formed by the same physical mechanisms and clearly all demonstrate NO differences OF CONDITION among them that would suggest a difference in age from bottom to top. AND the fact that NO tectonic and other disturbances occurred to the strata until the canyon itself was cut demonstrates that the time scale explanations are idiocy. Establishment based idiocy. Confirmed paradigm-dogmatic idiocy. You guys don't even LOOK at the canyon, you impose a pile of prejudices on it so that you can't even see the thing as it is. You can't even see the fact that the canyon didn't get cut until the whole thing was in place, after, what, a few BILLION years according to your ridiculous theory when NO canyons were cut and no other disturbance occurred? The amazing thing is that you can't see the forest for the trees of your idiotic theory.
Since there are no eclogites in the Grand Canyon I feel no obligation to try to penetrate your utterly befogged form of "communication."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 1:31 AM Boof has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 2:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 354 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 9:15 AM Faith has replied
 Message 361 by Taq, posted 11-21-2012 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 323 of 409 (680737)
11-21-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
11-21-2012 1:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:
The miscommunication here is absolutely beyond my ability to figure out, so I have to abandon this discussion completely. You are making no sense whatever.
Really, Faith, the question is quite simple. What do you mean when talking about the geological column ? ALL of the rocks ? Or do you exclude some ? If you exclude some, which do you exclude ?
If you can't even explain what you mean then the problem is with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 324 of 409 (680738)
11-21-2012 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
11-20-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
quote:
I believe you'll find the literary modes of the Bible discussed in the following articles on how to read the Bible from the Reformed point of view, particularly the first one:
Search | Monergism
I have a question about this one, Faith, How can you possible trust any description of the "grammatical-historical" method which makes NO mention of how to use either grammar or history ? One that in fact describes it as interpreting the text in the light of a particular theological viewpoint (a principle which is neither grammatical nor historical)
(It even fails to even mention the importance of reading the texts in the original language in order to apply grammatical principles!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 325 of 409 (680745)
11-21-2012 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by PaulK
11-21-2012 2:11 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
I include all the LAYERS, the LAYERS, the STRATA, all over the earth. Good grief. That is NOT the problem with this ridiculous argument. I already said my answer: If it's in a layer then I assume it pre-existed the Flood in its current condition and was transported along with the other contents of that layer to its current location.
He is making NO sense at all. If it's found IN A LAYER then it WAS THERE when the layer was deposited. What on earth is he thinking about the 4300 years SINCE the Flood? If it was laid down in the Flood it was already there at the end of the Flood, the subsequent years have nothing to do with it. If it was there in whatever "time" period he assigns to that layer then it's been there since that "time" period occurred. This argument is just senseless gobbledygook.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 2:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 326 of 409 (680747)
11-21-2012 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by PaulK
11-21-2012 2:20 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
I don't know, all I know is that's what the Reformed hermeneutic is called. The Dispensationalist hermeneutic is called the Literal-Historical-Grammatical method. I've only recently begun listening to a course on hermeneutics myself. I just figured those sites would explain that the Bible employs different literary modes for those who are stuck on the idea that everybody thinks it must be read "literally" in some wackily literal sense of "literal."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : grammar

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:16 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 327 of 409 (680749)
11-21-2012 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
11-21-2012 3:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In Message 208 you suggested that some layers couldn't be considered part of the geological column. Now you say that they absolutely definitely are. I wish you wouldn't get angry when people are just trying to understand what you say.
Look Faith, if you have problems understanding that rocks are rocks or that rocks are made of the substances that rocks are made of I don't really think you can blame pour lack of understanding on other people,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 328 of 409 (680750)
11-21-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
11-21-2012 3:58 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
In that case I suggest that they are seriously misrepresenting Luther's hermeneutic. Elsewhere I've seen it described as an attempt to get at what the original author meant, and I have to say that makes more sense to me - and is definitely contrary to the description in the article that you recommended,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 329 of 409 (680752)
11-21-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:14 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
I suggested no such thing but apparently was misread to say that because of some different idea about the extent of the geological column. As I've understood it there are no STRATA that deep in the earth. The strata start somewhere on the surface of the continents in my understanding. Perhaps you can change my view of this.
I have no problem understanding what rocks are made of.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:30 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 330 of 409 (680753)
11-21-2012 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by PaulK
11-21-2012 4:16 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
Then read one of the others. (All of the different systems I'm aware of aim to get at the meaning of the original authors, that's not going to be a difference among them.) AGAIN, I was ONLY trying to find a reference to demonstrate that the Bible employs different literary modes. Period.
I looked at the link and it seems that it does start with the conclusion rather than the argument. Not a good place to start.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:16 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2012 4:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024