Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
30 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,272 Year: 22,308/19,786 Month: 871/1,834 Week: 371/500 Day: 4/66 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geological timescale and the flood.
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 1 of 51 (425955)
10-04-2007 4:20 PM


The creationist position on flood geology is often hazy about when (geologically) the flood occurred and which rocks we can ascribe to the flood. I've had it pointed out to me more than once that I shouldn't forget that rock was probably laid down both before the flood and after, but no one has ever specified which rocks are pre-flood and which are post-flood. I remember the ICR's boundaries for the flood being the beginning of the Cambrian and the beginning of the Tertiary, but I've never seen the reasoning for this explained.

My question to creationists is- when (into which geological periods) do you place:

    -Creation week rocks?
    -Post-creation but pre-flood rocks?
    -Flood rocks?
    -Post flood rocks?
    -Initiation of plate tectonics?
    -End of major/fast plate tectonics

Please justify your position: Why do you place the boundaries where you do?

Edited by The Matt, : addition suggested by Iceage


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iceage, posted 10-05-2007 1:39 PM The Matt has responded
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-07-2007 11:24 AM The Matt has not yet responded
 Message 7 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 1:23 PM The Matt has responded
 Message 9 by CTD, posted 10-09-2007 12:26 AM The Matt has responded

  
AdminCoragyps
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 51 (425980)
10-04-2007 4:54 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 3 of 51 (426161)
10-05-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
10-04-2007 4:20 PM


Plate Tectonic Week....
Matt writes:

Initiation of plate tectonics

I addition what was the period of time (start to finish) for the major tectonic activity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 10-04-2007 4:20 PM The Matt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by The Matt, posted 10-08-2007 7:53 AM iceage has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 4 of 51 (426534)
10-07-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
10-04-2007 4:20 PM


As the resident of an island that exists as the result of tectonic activity, I look forward to seeing the chronology.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 10-04-2007 4:20 PM The Matt has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 12:53 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 5 of 51 (426644)
10-08-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iceage
10-05-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Plate Tectonic Week....
Good idea. Added to the list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iceage, posted 10-05-2007 1:39 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2459 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 6 of 51 (426679)
10-08-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Archer Opteryx
10-07-2007 11:24 AM


And how long do you plan on waiting? Till the 3rd coming of Christ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-07-2007 11:24 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 7 of 51 (426694)
10-08-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
10-04-2007 4:20 PM


quote:
-Creation week rocks?

.
.
.
.
. I would lean to pre cambrian, and cambrian.

quote:
-Post-creation but pre-flood rocks?

.
.
.
.
. I would include all. likely at least up to the KT boundary.

quote:
-Flood rocks?

.
.
.
.
. I would think these may be hard to distinguish in some cases, from the glacier meltings.

quote:
-Post flood rocks?

.
.
.
.
. I would think at least all those rocks that 'they think' are less than say 100,000 years old. Possibly some exceptions there.

quote:
-Initiation of plate tectonics?

.
.
.
. I would go with about 4400 years ago.

quote:
-End of major/fast plate tectonics

.
.
.
. Also 4400 years ago, remembering that there seems to be still some residual action, and movement there.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Edited by simple, : No reason given.

Edited by simple, : neatness


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 10-04-2007 4:20 PM The Matt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 7:13 PM simple has responded
 Message 11 by The Matt, posted 10-09-2007 7:07 AM simple has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2459 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 8 of 51 (426788)
10-08-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by simple
10-08-2007 1:23 PM


why would plate tectonics start 4400 years ago when the planet was allegedly 6000 years ago? That doesn't make any sense. Why would the plates start moving 1600 years in?

Furthermore, why would they stop moving when the reason they move still exists?

Is geology no longer taught in middle school?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 1:23 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 3:33 AM obvious Child has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4213 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 9 of 51 (426880)
10-09-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Matt
10-04-2007 4:20 PM


The way to do this is on a case-by-case basis. Attempts to label things in advance of investigation are overly ambitious.

Any attempt to utilize isochron dates is likely to fail, since these don't take the flood into account. Naturally occurring water can dissolve the ingredients, so there's no way to easily determine initial conditions even if one were inclined to do so.

Fossils are advantageous to the investigator, because they leave clues as to whether a rock would be most likely to have been formed before, during, or after the flood.

Due to curiosity, I'm most interested in the pre-flood world. It is fascinating, and it's also one of the most difficult subjects to research. So rather than view an example which seems as if it couldn't be formed after or during the flood as a problem, I view it as a potential pre-flood specimen that may contain new information. But I've learned to be skeptical of claims about what the flood could not do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Matt, posted 10-04-2007 4:20 PM The Matt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by The Matt, posted 10-10-2007 12:51 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 51 (426923)
10-09-2007 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by obvious Child
10-08-2007 7:13 PM


quote:
why would plate tectonics start 4400 years ago when the planet was allegedly 6000 years ago? That doesn't make any sense. Why would the plates start moving 1600 years in?

They would start moving as part of the big universe state change that happened after the flood. Now, you referenced the 6000 years, in other words, the bible, so I did the same with the big change after the flood. Neither of us can use science on that one to back it up.

So, all one can do, is go along with science. For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

quote:
Furthermore, why would they stop moving when the reason they move still exists?
They never stopped moving totally, but the big movement was over. As for the supposed reason they move, that is conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 7:13 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 10-09-2007 2:43 PM simple has responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3885 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 11 of 51 (426935)
10-09-2007 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by simple
10-08-2007 1:23 PM


Interesting, but why? What boundary or characteristic(s) do you use to tell them apart?

quote:

I would go with about 4400 years ago.

Would that be within the K-T to allegedly <100,000 years old bracket?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by simple, posted 10-08-2007 1:23 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 3:24 PM The Matt has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2459 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 12 of 51 (427030)
10-09-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by simple
10-09-2007 3:33 AM


quote:
They would start moving as part of the big universe state change that happened after the flood.

What? What big state change? What evidence is there to suggest that any radically changed?

quote:
Neither of us can use science on that one to back it up.

Actually I'm going to use the time frame to show that your argument doesn't make sense.

quote:
For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

Not for the reasons you give. Your argument doesn't even address basic geology. Plates move because the magma under the plates and friction between plates. Why would they start moving 1600 years in and then slow when magma hasn't significantly changed?

Furthermore, massive movement of plates would result in huge amounts of earthquakes, tidal waves, mountain ranges everywhere and things people would record. There is no evidence whatsoever in any recorded civilization of such upheaval. Furthermore, plates moving 5 feet a year would require heat massively more substantial then today. Where did this heat go? Plates move 1 inch a year. Your argument requires 60 inches a year. Where did that extra heat go?

quote:
For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

Your entire argument is speculation. Why did they start moving and why did they all but stop?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 3:33 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 3:31 PM obvious Child has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 13 of 51 (427058)
10-09-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by The Matt
10-09-2007 7:07 AM


No. I was thinking of dates for the stuff near the surface, like glacier melts. Like about the time when man got to North America, and all that sort of thing, and the ice age.

Once we get a bit beyond that, the so called dates go wild. But, since I think the whole thing was done in 6000 years, you might suspect how utterly meaningless any of those dates are in reality.

If the KT was the flood time, then it would be about 4500 years ago.

As for a boundary to tell them, that got skewed by the rapid separation of continents, I think, after the flood. But I am suspicious of the iridium near the KT. That is know to be in the interior of the earth. There was known to be a lot of stuff come up from down there at the flood time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by The Matt, posted 10-09-2007 7:07 AM The Matt has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 51 (427060)
10-09-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by obvious Child
10-09-2007 2:43 PM


quote:
What? What big state change? What evidence is there to suggest that any radically changed?

As I said, science can't help either of us there. What evidence is there to suggest that any did not radically change?

quote:
Actually I'm going to use the time frame to show that your argument doesn't make sense.
You seem to think you are.

quote:
Not for the reasons you give. Your argument doesn't even address basic geology. Plates move because the magma under the plates and friction between plates. Why would they start moving 1600 years in and then slow when magma hasn't significantly changed?

Furthermore, massive movement of plates would result in huge amounts of earthquakes, tidal waves, mountain ranges everywhere and things people would record. There is no evidence whatsoever in any recorded civilization of such upheaval. Furthermore, plates moving 5 feet a year would require heat massively more substantial then today. Where did this heat go? Plates move 1 inch a year. Your argument requires 60 inches a year. Where did that extra heat go?



That depends on what the world was like back then, and the laws of physics. I think you will discover, that that is actually unknown. If it was as you assume, then you would be correct. Too bad that is all you can do is assume!

If it was as the bible talks about, why it would be so different, that our laws simply did not exist as we know tham at all. Look at creation week. The land masses were separated from the waters on a planetary scale. Yet, life was gently put here a few days later, no heat that was any danger to life at all. That can't happen now, as you might suspect.
Neither could a flood, or rapid continental separation.

If you want to rest on the old geology maxim, 'The present is the key to the past' you would need to prove it (within reason)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by obvious Child, posted 10-09-2007 2:43 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by obvious Child, posted 10-09-2007 3:47 PM simple has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2459 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 15 of 51 (427064)
10-09-2007 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by simple
10-09-2007 3:31 PM


quote:
As I said, science can't help either of us there. What evidence is there to suggest that any did not radically change?

Because there is no radical change? The physical conditions and laws of the Universe do not show any abrupt change. Why would we believe there was a radical change when there is no evidence of it? The evidence that suggests there was no radical change is because there is no evidence to suggest there was a radical change. Assume this senario is true: a tract of sand with no wind. There are no prints in it. Do you believe that a animal walked across it or that no animals walked across it? As there is no evidence (prints) that a animal walked across, we can assume no animal walked across.

quote:
You seem to think you are.

At this point, I'm not sure you'll even understand.

quote:
That depends on what the world was like back then, and the laws of physics.

Why would the laws of physics change? Why did they leave no evidence fo changing? Your argument is completely asinine. You assume things changed and hence you are right yet you [b]provide absolutely no evidence and believe that things changed [u]despite leaving no evidence of change[/u][/b]. How do you think that is a good argument? According to you, the tract of sand had numerous animals walk across it despite leaving no evidence of their existence!

quote:
Yet, life was gently put here a few days later, no heat that was any danger to life at all.

What? Are you talking about? You don't even make any sense. You're now saying that life was put on the Earth AFTER the flood. Why did Noah even have to bother building it if God restocked the planet?

This is insanity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 3:31 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-09-2007 4:16 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019