Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

How does the idea that they existed at different times have anything to do with locating oil or etc.?

That is not the flood model, that's your own made-up nonsense. Floodists know the strata and the fossils got sorted as they did so we have exactly the same information you have about where to locate the gold bead.And if your example WERE the geological model they would explain the location of the gold bead in terms of its original location just as I keep saying must be the method they use, but they keep insisting it's about the age of the strata. Your model doesn't represent that claim they make.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are imagining "my model" in your own terms, it is not my model. My model knows things are located where they ARE located in the real world. So we would know just as you do where to expect things to be.But I think this discussion HAS given me the answer. The age of things has absolutely NOTHING to do with finding oil or gold etc., it IS all a matter of WHERE THE STRATA AND THE FOSSILS ARE LOCATED, and YECs have access to that same information just from observing the world as we find it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Creationists are geologists too. There is not a distinction between "creationists" and "geologists." There is a distinction between "young earthers" and "old earthers" whether geologists or not.It's you, really, who can't account for a layer of sediment extending over such vast distances. That really does take the Flood to explain it. Sediments being laid down today occur at nowhere near that range. As Garner on that UK Creationism video explains.I don't see that the AGE of the "index fossils" makes one bit of difference. Their existence and predictable occurrence make them useful, nevertheless.

There has been plenty of discussion about HOW the Flood could have sorted things. Tou are raising questions creationists have answered many times over. In THIS discussion it's irrelevant.

I don't want to get into the deep technical aspects of any of this. Somebody said you need old earth timing to find oil. I just wanted to know how, in ordinary English. I'm convinced more and more from what people are saying that the age part of it is not really relevant, it's certain physical facts that are important, physical facts that can be very complex but are more or less predictable if you know what you are looking for, which should be possible no matter what your theory of age, and while the literature is all bound up in old earth thinking I'm still unconvinced it's necessary.I gather from Rox's posts that geologists have to wade through a ton of imaginative SCENARIOS to EXPLAIN how rocks got where they are, which makes it clear that geology is just about inextricably bound up in all that scenario-building that is nothing but imagination about the past. Sorting out what is purely physical fact from all that is beyond me.I can see that it would be an awful let down to have to think all that was REALLY caused by a one time worldwide Flood.And there's so much hostility about my even suggesting such things I don't see any point in going on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah I know the party line, Coyote. It looks different from my side where the evidence you think you have just doesn't do what you think it does. Over and over people seem to think they are proving that age matters, but over and over all they've proved is that certain physical facts are what matter and not age.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Fine, but before you do let's keep in mind that nothing anybody has said to this point has actually given evidence that AGE matters in the finding of oil or ores etc., all they've done is assert that their overall OE theory that explains how rocks got where they are means age is relevant, along with gratuitous objections to bizarre straw man notions about YEC arguments. And apparently geologists DO work with the whole bag of ideas at once, facts plus theory all interwoven together in something like a Gordian knot, as Rox's posts demonstrate. You know, I don't doubt that it WORKS -- or at least mostly works, nobody's said just how reliable these methods are at finding what you want to find -- I just don't see from anything anyone has said here that the old earth theory is necessary to the methodolgy.But, fire away: YECs also take this for granted, although I wonder how perfectly predicable this is in reality. This I wouldn't know and it wouldn't convince me of much even if so. Of course, this is standard logic, the question is how MUCH younger from one to the one above. Also taken for granted by YECs. However, Dr. A objected some time ago to my describing the existence of these strata as "all over the globe" so you might take that up with him some time. Yup, as I've many times noted myself, especially as it bears upon my presumptuous cheeky theory about how the Great Unconformity at the base of the Grand Canyon formed after all the strata were already in place. Elementary my dear Watson. 1. No idea.
2. Does it really?
3. Have you really accounted for all possible ways the readings could be deceptive?
4. I've many times acknowledged that radiometric dating is the ONLY true objective measure you guys have for your age claims, and I don't spend time on it. I don't know, FEY, and neither do you. Because there are OTHER considerations that call the whole OE scenario into question that you guys NEVER address, and I don't mean my Biblical YEC belief about the Flood.You all have to completely ignore or give some kind of ridiculous rubegoldbergish explanation for the fact that all those strata all over the world are so NEAT, so neatly horizontal, even with knife-edge interfaces between some of them, like they HAD to have been laid down in a massive Flood and couldn't possibly have formed over millions of years or sat there for a billion years while strata slowly formed above them.They all LOOK the same as far as AGE goes, and higher ones have no more or less erosion between them than lower ones if there is any erosion to speak of. The idea that ANY of these strata were ever at the SURFACE of the earth is RIDICULOUS. Sorry, it is. Just a month of being exposed at the surface would have cut all kinds of erosive effects into them that CLEARLY DID NOT OCCUR.I keep saying GO LOOK AT THE STRATA IN THE WALLS OF THE GRAND CANYON. Well, unfortunately apparently that is an impossible request because once you are used to "seeing" through your OE lenses you can't actually SEE the strata there in their simple physical form.Go look at the erosion between the Great Unconformity and the Tapeats Sandstone. THAT is what you expect from a few million years of sitting on the surface of the earth? Not to mention that you expect a huge block of upthrust strata to have eroded down anywhere near FLAT? On what planet?NOT TO MENTION that the only REAL "erosion" that occurred to the area was the CUTTING OF THE CANYON ITSELF which didn't happen until the so-called "Permian" period, while presumably the whole stack just sat there quietly for that billion and a half years before the tectonic event that cut the canyon happened. Why will NOBODY acknowledge this OBVIOUS fact as calling OE into question? And I haven't even mentioned how the same timing obviously formed ALL the interesting sculpted strata of the American Southwest. The hoodoos, the buttes, the stairs, the other canyons etc. etc. etc.Now all these considerations and many more, some considered by Garner on that video I've mentioned here, are to me open and shut evidence that the old earth scenarios for the formation of the strata are sheer nonsense, but all they get is ridicule because the OE explanations are so ingrained.Certainly it's an interesting fact that the fossils DID get sorted in such an orderly way, so you can put that on the OE side of the dispute as long as you put what I've said above on the YE side. But another thing nobody really addresses is the fact that the collections of fossils found in the various strata are so oddly grouped together in their own families. Why should that be if they supposedly died normal deaths over normal lifespans?Also the collections are oddly homogeneous, I mean such specific groupings are SO predictably found in particular strata around the world as you agree. But shouldn't there be a whole spectrum of life forms in any particular era, why just the peculiar ones that happen to suit the idea of evolution from one to another up the strata? Why nothing but nautiloids in a layer in the Grand Canyon area? {ABE: Oh somebody is going to take my "nothing but" too literally, so please, let me correct it to "MOSTLY" nautiloids -- I mean it looks like just about the entire population of those creatures in that area ended up in that layer.} Why one family of trilobites in one layer, and another closely related family in the layer above?If all this is hard to explain on the Flood model, I would think it ought to be even harder to explain on the OE model.Again, all this seems open and shut to me against the Old Earth.Did you watch the video about the Grand Canyon I've mentioned a number of times? The "scientific" response to it here has been on the level of calling the man an idiot. Just LOVE how EvC prides itself on such deeply scientific thought.That's my answer to you, FEY, but I have no illusions it will rock you off your happy embrace of OE geology.So now I can just sit back and watch the EvC hounds ignore the main points, pick on the little points, change the subject / raise completely other issues, come up with outlandish rubegoldbergish ways to explain away anything they want to explain away, scream ad hominems against me, ndulge in extravagant creative insults, vulgar invectives, anything but take seriously anything I've said.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I answered you with good reasons -- GOOD reasons -- why I don't take what you said as the final word, and you won't address what I said but just call me deluded. Just like a good little OE convert, SO deluded yourself you even indulge in their straw man talking points. Nothing I said invoked anything supernatural, you're just having a typical OE straw man fit. Bye bye.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Except of course that is not what I did. But Happy New Year to you, too, Roxy.Added later:
Not that I WOULDN'T of course but in this case I didn't. And it's a 3500 year old text by the way, started by Moses, not that its age matters since it speaks today just as God speaks today. Really really bad idea to listen to mere human beings when God is speaking all the time, really really sad that mere "science" gets a hearing when the God who made it all gets ignored.But anyway, I DIDN'T invoke the supernatural at all in the discussion with FEY, and again, Happy 2013.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.