|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
What I think about the Grand Canyon is completely in accord with what creationist GEOLOGISTS think about it . . . We are more interested in conclusions that are in accord with the evidence. Showing adherence to a theological dogma may play well in church, but it doesn't play well amongst scientists.
I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, . . . I am pretty sure you have. 1. Coconino sandstones: these are windblown sand dunes. They are not flood deposits. 2. Great unconformity: A great picture can be found here. In this case, we have sediments tipped at about a 30 degree angle to the rest of the formations. How does a flood make these deposits? One flood can't. It is completely inconsistent with a flood. 3. Incised meanders: Catastrophic flooding does not produce incised meanders like those found here. Catastrophic erosion by flooding produces wide, straight channels, often with braiding. Only a slower moving river produces those types of meanders, and a slow moving river will not excavate the Grand Canyon in the time needed. Those are just 3 problems with your claims. There are many others. Again, don't tell us that your views are consistent with creationists. We want to see views that are consistent with the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Percy writes: Going from the top the major layers of the Grand Canyon consist of: LimestoneShale Sandstone Shale Sandstone Limestone Shale Limestone Shale Sandstone Material suspended in flood waters falls out of suspension according to density and particle size. The mere fact of alternating layers is the simplest way to eliminate a flood as a possible cause of the layers of the Grand Canyon. Thank-you for this.I was unaware that the layers alternated in such a way. The coupling of simplicity and power within this argument against a natural flood causing the layers of the Grand Canyon is nice to see. Maybe someone could say the flood was God-guided (or magical), but I cannot understand how anyone could attempt to explain this fact by dealing with a naturally-guided flood. It's just impossible. Like Jesus' resurrection. Naturally impossible. The only explanation would be by God's will. I suppose the only issue would be that if you hinge your belief in God on a natural-flood forming the layers of the Grand Canyon (or "taking the Bible literally")... then you either have to ignore plain, simple, obvious facts or restructure your belief in God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.Correction, the currents do occur at various levels, but the layers I had in mind are formed by the different temperatures at various depths and are a different phenomenon from the currents. So I re-read Genesis. There was one flood that lasted a year, it began to subside after 150 days. So basically, the whole of earth was covered with water above mountain height, then drained away somehow like letting water out of a bath. All of the 'loose' material on the earth would have been stirred up a bit then settled out to form sediments. It would happen like this, with the big stuff dropping to the bottom first then and the fine stuff last. (I think it best if we forget the dissolving bit, don't you?) So it would work like this:
Unfortunately. that's not what we see in your canyon. What we see are many different levels were several different kinds of mixtures have settled out at different times. You seem to want the layers to all form within the water before settling out - nope, that doesn't work does it?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dissolving "stuff" somehow equates to dissolving ROCK for you guys? "Stuff?" I'm thinking MUDSLIDES here, not ROCK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Coconino Sandstone, contrary to old earth lore, is a FLAT SLAB OF ROCK, flat on the bottom, flat on the top, not SAND DUNES, which don't lay themselves out in flat layers. The sand had to have been formed elsewhere and transported to its current layer. Surely there is a principle by which the sand, which had been shaped before being moved, has a way of laying itself in the position that makes for crossbedding, just because of its orientation, that is, the orientation of its separate shaped grains.
Ocean water has tides, waves, currents, layers. It carries things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Mud doesn't dissolve either, but let it go,
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, they are not composed of soil, they are composed of sand and calcium carbonate grains and clays that lithified into rock. Sand and clays certainly DO occur in soils however.
In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme. As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences. AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them. Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side. Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Mud is dissolved stuff.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The Coconino Sandstone, contrary to old earth lore, is a FLAT SLAB OF ROCK, flat on the bottom, flat on the top, not SAND DUNES, which don't lay themselves out in flat layers. They form flat sets of cross-beds, as you''d know if you were remotely interested in geology.
Surely there is a principle by which the sand, which had been shaped before being moved, has a way of laying itself in the position that makes for crossbedding ... Yeah, it's called "being formed by sand-dunes".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The sand had to have been formed elsewhere and transported to its current layer. Yay Faith. Sand again shows that the earth is old. See How to make sand.. And you need to provide the Flood Mechanism that creates cross bedding and that lays down just sandstone and nothing else in a particular layer. Also explain how it preserves footprints.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
In any case they are not "records of regions" of anything as if time has a way of laying itself out in flat slabs of rock. They are sediments that were mechnically transported and lithified in layers. The idea that they represent scenarios and landscapes is ridiculous in the extreme. Except to people who've actually studied the rocks.
As I keep saying, just LOOK at them (in the walls of the Grand Canyon where they're so nicely visible), they are FLAT SLABS OF ROCK that show NO differences between them in CONDITION so there's nothing to demonstrate AGE differences. What is this "NO differences between them in CONDITION" even meant to mean? Is it the same as "completely different in every conceivable respect apart from merely being sedimentary rocks"?
AND they just lie there quietly too, to that great depth, and nothing happened to them until the canyon was cut through the entire stack. Somehow they were all undisturbed through millions upon millions of years and then suddenly finally this canyon happened to them. Oh, apart from the tectonic events recorded by the great unconformity, the erosional events recorded by the other unconformities, and the uplift of the frickin' Colorado Plateau.
Really, that ought to alert you all that the old earth scnarios about former landscapes might be a little on the fantastic side. Things that creationists make up and are plainly contrary to fact alert us that it's the young earth scenarios that are fantastic. 'Cos of being, y'know, fantasies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
Mud is dissolved stuff. ...No, it's really not. Mud is a mixture, not a solution. You're using terminology that has a technical meaning in ways inconsistent with that technical meaning. Mixtures and suspensions are very different from solutions - solutes must be precipitated out of solution, the most common method for which being to evaporate the solvent. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm. The projection, it burns...The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't claim to know how the water laid down the sediments. I certainly doubt all the simplistic explanations here are sufficient. This is not just another flood, as some keep comparing it to, which ought to be obvious. GLOBAL, ya know, GLOBAL, endless rain for forty nights and day AROUND THE globe. Ah well.
Anyway, the mechanics of deposition aren't obvious. Could involve precipitation but could involve deposition by waves, long waves that moved a great distance across the land area before depositing their loads of sediments the way waves deposit sand on a beach, I don't see how you could know for sure. It's just that there is no way that stack of layers got put there over millions of years per supposed time unit, it HAD to have been deposited in the Flood because that's what that much water would do. The old earth scenarios that read complex histories and landscapes into slabs of rock are sheer fairy tale. Again, NOTHING HAPPENED TO THEM until the canyon was cut. Ah well. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7
|
Faith, you would probably be far better served to abandon making specific statements about the geological mechanisms involved in the Flood and stick to what you (according to your interpretation of the Bible) "know:"
You've claimed that the FLood happened as described in Genesis; that it was global in scope; that the Earth is some thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old. Most importantly, you've said that while the current scientific models for geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc all contradict this view, you are utterly confident that the scientific models will be proven wrong at some later date, and the Biblical record (as you interpret it) will be vindicated as wholly accurate. Just stick with that. You can say "I have no idea how the rocks were all formed; I have no idea why fossils appear where they do. All I know is that the Flood happened, and anything that contradicts that fact must be wrong, even if nobody yet knows precisely how. The currently accepted models of science are based on faulty data, and some day this will be borne out." There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." All your inference has done thus far is provide specifics for your opponents to tear down as hopelessly wrong according to all demonstrable scientific models, as well as opportunity for you to misuse technical terms. Since you're already taking an apologetic stance and placing the conclusion (the Flood happened) prior to (and regardless of) evidence, why bother trying to fill in the blanks? "God said it, I believe it, and that's the end of it" would more concisely encapsulate your argument in this thread.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024