Aside from the implication that only YEC-exclusive churches may be considered Christian, I still don't see the point. It is still a fact that the young-earth view declined in popularity because of the evidence against it.
My interest is in keeping it up front that the YEC view is the Biblical view, the plainest reading. Ringo agrees, showing it's pretty obvious.
The tabletop experiments on which you base your view rely on the upper layers as being absolutely rigid, so that the lower - and much softer layers can deform beneath them.
This is obviously inconsistent with lumps of the "softer" material infiltrating the rigid layers above. Remember you have to explain why the tilting force ONLY raises the higher strata, and doesn't cause it to be bent or deformed.
I don't take it that exactly literally. It's simply to illustrate that layers can buckle beneath layers that stay horizontal. In fact what it "relies" on is there being a difference between the two sections such that one can slip under the other. That can be the case with more rigid upper layers but it doesn't have to be. The buckling of the lower layers is caused by the tectonic force applied, and I figure the weight of the layers above was equal to that force and resisted it, facilitated by the slippage factor between the different kinds of rock.
In fact I've become intrigued with your description of the erosion area at Siccar Point as containing lumps of greywacke apparently surrounded by sandstone, because that is very similar to the situation found between the Grand Unconformity and the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon, where big chunks of rock can be seen embedded in the eroded area.
In that case it is also a harder rock below and sandstone above. The difference in texture between the two would allow for movement between the two, I don't think the upper has to be the more rigid. There's also a somewhat similar situation between the Coconino Sandstone and the rock below it in that the sand has sifted into crevices in that rock. This was presented in the video I posted on the UK Creationism thread where they explain that as caused by an earthquake while the rocks were still wet from the Flood. They talk of three different earthquakes and show three different levels in the canyon that were affected by them. I'd assume it was all from the one earthquake that would have occurred from the tectonic-volcanic event that caused the unconformity at the bottom and raised the whole area at the same time.
The erosion in the Grand Canyon occurs only at the junction between the Great Unconformity and the layer above it, the Tapeats Sandstone.
But that isn't true.
Let me put it this way: That's where the same KIND of erosion occurred as can be seen at Siccar Point, a wide lumpy band in which lumps of the lower rock somehow got buried in the sandstone from above, which I figure had to be caused by the violent horizontal friction between the two as the force from beneath tilted the lower strata.
The idea that they just sat there undisturbed layer after layer for a few billion years until after that long finally they got massively disturbed by the cutting of the canyon among other things, is nonsense no matter how you look at it.
The idea that weathering is caused by exposure to weather is far from being nonsense. There is no reason to believe that older rock should show more weathering if it has been less exposed to conditions that would cause weathering.
The idea that they all just SAT there unexposed, undisturbed, unweathered, for billions of years is what is nonsense, and only after all that undisturbed time to then suddenly be disturbed by the cutting of that huge canyon.
So it's a very solid inference that you want to overturn with a scenario that even I can see serious problems with. A real geologist would likely see more problems.
Oh probably. Or think so, anyway.
I actually don't have any problem answering Hutton at all, I've had a lot of fun thinking it through. It's all there at my blog.
Erosion would naturally occur at the junction between the horizontal upper strata and the tilting lower strata when the tectonic force occurred, pushing the lower layers violently against the upper, perhaps for quite a long horizontal distance.
But only if the upper surface was rigid,
Rigid ENOUGH, that's all.
any bonding between the surfaces was weak enough to be negligible,
It was all still wet or at least damp from the Flood.
and the lower strata were malleable enough to be deformed without significantly affecting the upper levels.
Again, all the rock was wet, not yet completely lithified. But it's the slippage factor between the two different kinds of rock that I think is the crucial element, plus the weight from the upper stack being equal at that point or enough to resist the force from below, or really, because there IS a slippage factor it doesn't have to be perfectly equal, there just has to be a point at which the two kinds of rocks would slip between each other, where the buckling "gives" beneath the upper strata.
So how exactly did those lumps of greywacke get into the sandstone?
Seems to me that you just aren't seeing the problems with your answer.
The greywacke buckled and was forced vertically up and slid horizontally against the sandstone layer above, causing great friction obviously. Lumps of the tilted greywacke were broken off by the abrasive contact but the flat sandstone was exposed more to the horizontal abrasion, and being still soft from the Flood waters, sifted down between the lumps of greywacke.
Oh come on. Absolutely not, that's too much to ask. You know perfectly well that the creation is described in "days" and that we understand them as ordinary days timewise and that counting the genealogy of Seth brings us to the Flood at only about 1700 years from the Creation.
So it's an inference, an interpretation of a text. "God says" means your interpretation of a text that you attribute to God. I think that we can agree that I am not required to accept either your interpretation or your attribution without adequate reason.
It's the majority reading, not my own.
Then prove that it weighs against that view.
Not one book of the Bible claims to be directly written by God, but several attribute human authors directly or implicitly. You ought to know that much.
There are passages in the New Testament we understand to tell us that all scripture is inspired by God, of course through human agents. We know that all the prophets spoke by God anyway, because they say so: "The word of the LORD came to me..."
Which really means "the wisdom of this world" forbids it
Wrong. It means that I can't make myself believe something I consider to be obviously false.
Same thing. You are applying the standards of the world to God's word, when you need to apply God's word to the world instead.
God does not save people by intellectual means, by scientific evidence (although the Bible in itself IS evidence and chock full of it)or by worldly wisdom, but He has one way and one way only: BELIEVE. If you despise that method you've locked yourself out.
If God requires self-delusion, then too bad for me. But if God is the sort of being who requires self-delusion, too bad for everyone.
God requires trusting him over your own mind. He knows more.
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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
