Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Back to the fundamentals
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 65 (1541)
01-04-2002 2:00 AM


Disclaimer: I, minnemooseus, am one who has fallen under the influence of a college education in geology.
As I see it, the most fundimental exponent of the evidence of evolution (inorganic and organic) is the geologic column. It is a record of what happened through the long passage of time. The rocks at the bottom, and any contained fossils, are the earliest available record of what happened at that location. The rocks at the top, and any contained fossils, are the latest available record of what happened at that location. There are also methodologies for sequencing other events, such as faulting and folding. This is the conventional wisdom.
Conventional geologic and related study weaves a complex, interlocking story of the processes that resulted in the geologic record. Fundamental to this study is the idea (theory?) of uniformitarianism, which says that the processes we see happening today, are the same processes that happened in the past. This uniformitarianism certainly dosn't exclude the occasional catastrophic event. It does say that most of what we see is a result of ordinary, common processes.
This kicker of this discussion, of course, is the reality of the "great flood" of Noah's time. At least some believers in this event think that much of the geologic column is a result of that short term (few years?) event. As such, the geologic column is not a record of the happenings during the passage of time. Rather, the geologic column is the result of some sort of sorting process.
My personal opinion mirrors that of the vast majority of those trained in geology. That is, that a vast part of the geologic column could be from a short time period, single flood event, is plainly absurd. Now this statement, in itself, is (as I understand it) called "an arguement of authority (AOA)", or something like that. An AOA is considered to be a not valid method of debate.
Thus, I get challenged to supply specific data to support the idea that the geologic column is indeed a result of uniformitarianistic processes. Now, offhand, doing this should be easy. I have the entire history of conventional geologic study at my disposal. All I need do is post a significant portion (with references) of this history. And then further defend the details of that history.
As I see it, an at least equal burdon in on the "flood geology" advocate, to supply a history of geologic study, demonstrating how a single flood process can acount for the rocks of the geologic column.
What we need to come up with, is an example geologic column, or even better, a related set of columns (real world raw data), and then have both the conventional geologist and the "flood" geologist offer up their versions of how it happened. It would perhaps be nice if the column included some coal horizons. I am, of course, confident that the "flood" geologist would be unable to come up with a plausable explanation.
So, can anyone out there come up with an internet version of a geologic column? Maybe we need to track down that Grand Canyon section. The problem is finding a description that is detailed enough to study in depth.
Comments?
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 8:05 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 32 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-20-2002 9:31 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 48 by Watson, posted 12-24-2002 1:31 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 65 (1544)
01-04-2002 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-04-2002 2:00 AM


moose:
My personal opinion mirrors that of the vast majority of those trained in geology. That is, that a vast part of the geologic column could be from a short time period, single flood event, is plainly absurd.
John Paul:
And if it were just a single flood event I would agree with you. However it wasn't 'just a single flood event'. It was a continent splitting up and then some of the pieces crashing into each other forming the mountain ranges we observe today. Also the ocean basins sank and that is where the water went to causing erosion.
What is the data that shows mountain peaks can be formed by the slow & steady plate movements we observe today? Wouldn't the rock layers just flop over one another? Try it. You can see the difference when a car crashes into a stationary object at high speeds as opposed to 1-2 mph. Why would mountain making be any different?
Here is a link on the Creationists' PoV on the GUC:
Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 2:00 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 11:31 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 11:07 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 11:34 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 04-11-2002 9:18 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 23 by Peter, posted 04-11-2002 9:21 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 65 (1553)
01-04-2002 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-04-2002 8:05 AM



John Paul writes:
It was a continent splitting up and then some of the pieces crashing into each other forming the mountain ranges we observe today.
One byproduct of deformation is heat, and with rapid deformation you get a lot of heat in a very short period of time. The presence of intact sedimentary layers in mountain ranges (as opposed to metamorphic rock, the result of heating sedimentary rock to near or past the melting point) is an indication they were not formed rapidly, at least not within a timeframe of less than a few centuries. If you bend a coat hanger back and forth a few times you'll feel how much heat can be generated from even very small deformation events.
The extinction of the dinosaurs was thought to be caused by a comet or asteroid less than 10 kilometers across. Continents splitting up and crashing about to form entire mountain ranges all around the globe and sea floors dropping would be a major extinction event, possibly the last one. Such events would also leave huge amounts of extremely obvious evidence.
Can your scenario be adjusted to be consistent with what we already know about geology and the behavior of physical materials?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 8:05 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 1:41 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 65 (1559)
01-04-2002 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-04-2002 11:31 AM


Percy:
The extinction of the dinosaurs was thought to be caused by a comet or asteroid less than 10 kilometers across.
John Paul:
I thought Chixclub was refuted. ?
Percy:
Continents splitting up and crashing about to form entire mountain ranges all around the globe and sea floors dropping would be a major extinction event, possibly the last one.
John Paul:
That was the point. Wipe it out and start over.
Percy:
Such events would also leave huge amounts of extremely obvious evidence.
John Paul:
How so? What would we look for and reference it to? Don't forget that an intelligent agent is also capable of making an intentional act look un-intentional.
Percy:
Can your scenario be adjusted to be consistent with what we already know about geology and the behavior of physical materials?
John Paul:
I believe Dr. Walt Brown has modeled such a scenario.
Center for Scientific Creation
In the right hand column scroll down to Part II and read the overview of his 'Hydroplate Theory'.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 11:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 01-04-2002 4:25 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 01-04-2002 9:53 PM John Paul has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 65 (1566)
01-04-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
01-04-2002 1:41 PM


http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
re. the hydroplate theory.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 1:41 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 65 (1571)
01-04-2002 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
01-04-2002 1:41 PM



Percy writes:
Continents splitting up and crashing about to form entire mountain ranges all around the globe and sea floors dropping would be a major extinction event, possibly the last one. Such events would also leave huge amounts of extremely obvious evidence.

John Paul replies:
How so? What would we look for and reference it to? Don't forget that an intelligent agent is also capable of making an intentional act look un-intentional.
I understand you're an advocate of ID, but that's being covered in another thread. My point was strictly geological, that your scenario of recent, violent and sudden creation of mountain ranges and ocean basins is inconsistent with available evidence. Naturally God can do anything and cover his tracks later, but in that case God could have created us five minutes ago complete with memories of this discussion in mid-stream.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 1:41 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 65 (1574)
01-04-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-04-2002 8:05 AM


quote:
John Paul: And if it were just a single flood event I would agree with you. However it wasn't 'just a single flood event'. It was a continent splitting up and then some of the pieces crashing into each other forming the mountain ranges we observe today. Also the ocean basins sank and that is where the water went to causing erosion.
The Bible relates a story of a great flood. At the Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A thread, a mechanism for this flood is being debated. The Bible, however, makes no comment (am I wrong?) about anything beyond that "great flood", so thoughts of continents splitting and crashing, and mountains being built, in conjunction with the "great flood" is pure speculation.
quote:
John Paul: What is the data that shows mountain peaks can be formed by the slow & steady plate movements we observe today? Wouldn't the rock layers just flop over one another? Try it. You can see the difference when a car crashes into a stationary object at high speeds as opposed to 1-2 mph. Why would mountain making be any different?
I'm no expert, and I havn't done any special research to confirm it, but I believe that the Himalaya Mountains are still rising at a measureable rate.
As far as impact rates - Remember, the forces driving the collision didn't cease after the initial contact. Think of a car being slowly pushed into a solid object by a strong force. It may crumple slowly, but ultimately it will still get very crumpled.
I would prefer that a discussion of this nature be instead at that other string: Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A
What I was trying for in this string, was to get back to the rocks themselves (or the best possible internet version of the rocks themselves). Then to try to interpretate those rock to see what origins model they fit. Or something like that.
Best regards,
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 8:05 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 65 (1575)
01-04-2002 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-04-2002 8:05 AM


Re: Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico
I skimmed through it, and I am under the impression that the main point of it it that the "flood geologists" are having an internal debate over which rocks to include as "great flood" deposits, and which to exclude.
They are also seemingly showing a greater honesty in recognizing the problems of getting the real world data to fit in a "great flood" model.
In a way, I must commend the paper as being better than most of the "flood geology" papers I have encountered. I have bookmarked it, for further study.
Best regards,
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-04-2002 8:05 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-05-2002 2:20 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 9 of 65 (1579)
01-05-2002 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Minnemooseus
01-04-2002 11:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Re: Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico
I skimmed through it, and I am under the impression that the main point of it it that the "flood geologists" are having an internal debate over which rocks to include as "great flood" deposits, and which to exclude.
They are also seemingly showing a greater honesty in recognizing the problems of getting the real world data to fit in a "great flood" model.
In a way, I must commend the paper as being better than most of the "flood geology" papers I have encountered. I have bookmarked it, for further study.
Best regards,
Moose

Upon re-reading the first part of "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
I find that it contains some interesting comments about the relationships between the creationsist camp and the science of geology.
I give my personal encouragement to members on both sides, to give this paper a fairly careful reading, at least the first part. The later part of the paper gets rather "mucky", and can be given a lighter reading.
Cheers,
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-04-2002 11:34 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2002 11:39 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 10 of 65 (1803)
01-09-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Minnemooseus
01-05-2002 2:20 AM


Upon re-re-reading "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp :
I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-05-2002 2:20 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-18-2002 6:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-11-2002 8:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 11 of 65 (1989)
01-12-2002 8:52 PM


To the "flood geologists": Where is the evidence that the "great flood" happened?
Cite some real physical evidence. Show me the sediments.
Moose
ps. could the creationist side please be a clear as possible to whether they are old earth or young earth
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 12 of 65 (2227)
01-15-2002 9:42 PM


Come on creationists:
If the seven days of creation, the young earth, and the great flood are real - Why did God leave such a detailed worldly record to the contrary?
The worldly record that so many scientists have carefully studied and find so convincing. Have they been deceived? Why would God do this deception?
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-15-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 01-16-2002 11:28 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-20-2002 8:30 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 65 (2275)
01-16-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
01-15-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Come on creationists:
If the seven days of creation, the young earth, and the great flood are real - Why did God leave such a detailed worldly record to the contrary?
The worldly record that so many scientists have carefully studied and find so convincing. Have they been deceived? Why would God do this deception?
Moose

These are questions that will never be answered. However, I'll bump them back to the top just for fun. I'd also like to reiterate my question of why do we have ocean basins? Did the the weight of all that water simply depress them? (Not fair for Moose to answer, however if there is a response, feel free to fire away.)
I would also like to hear more about the multiple flood theory. Why are these floods not recorded in the bible?
[This message has been edited by edge, 01-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2002 9:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 14 of 65 (2423)
01-18-2002 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
01-09-2002 11:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Upon re-re-reading "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico" at:
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp :
I'm not really following some of their thought processes, but this paper seems to be more of a support for the "great flood" having not happened. By their own admission, they have not found evidence to support the "great flood" event.
Moose
John Paul - Do you have any comments on the above cited? You were the one to originally present the link. I did find it interesting.
See the "uniformitarianism" spin off topic also.
"Talk to the rocks - they have the answers",
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
Edited c. 8:30 pm ET, 1/20/01, to fix UBB code
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2002 11:39 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 15 of 65 (2554)
01-20-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
01-15-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Moose: If the seven days of creation, the young earth, and the great flood are real - Why did God leave such a detailed worldly record to the contrary?
The worldly record that so many scientists have carefully studied and find so convincing. Have they been deceived? Why would God do this deception?
Hey, I'm having to find my own answers to the above questions.
From http://www.theistic-evolution.com/
And more specificly, the authors "Essay in Favor of Theistic Evolution"
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html
From The Possibilities of Genesis
quote:
Perhaps God created the earth to look older. Adam certainly looked like a 25-year-old man in Genesis, even though he had just been created. Did God create the earth looking older to fool us or to tempt us? Absolutely not! He created the earth in accordance with his own natural laws, so that the natural laws make sense when projected backward past creation, just like Adam's body. The record of the past gives us clues to the future. Christians have always viewed creation as a divine miracle. Would anyone be bothered if someone claimed that the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings in their trunks? Why can't God create mountains with sedimentary layers in them? Why can't God create fossils in those layers? Is He not God Almighty?
And
quote:
At this point, we could all agree that the earth is 10,000 years old but God created it so that it appears to be older. Nobody could absolutely disprove this assertion. It looks older and it all fits together sensibly, so the scientists can continue with their research. Fundamentalist Christians can maintain the 6x24 accuracy of Genesis. Christians can concentrate on the Great Commission, and atheists will have to think up other ways to "bait" us. We can all go home now.
You may ask why God would create an earth that looks older. God is not a liar. There may be two reasons:
1. So that the natural laws make sense.
2. To give us clues to the future, based on a realistic past.
I am not satisfied with either of these reasons, but they are possibilities. Many of our "Why?" questions will have to wait until we get to heaven.
I have seen a hint of the "created recently but looks older" idea on one creationist web site, but most other creationist literature insists that all the natural processes must take place over 10,000 years. So unfortunately, because some Christians have chosen this path, this is the path I must address. The theory of evolution depends on having more than 10,000 years in which to work, so the natural age of the earth is important.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-15-2002 9:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024