Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

HUH?Capitalism is the result of your religion?Work ethic?Individual liberties?Science?Come on now Faith, even you must see that is simply a bare assertion.Have you not heard of Euclid, Aristotle, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, Georges Lematre, Hans Bethe?

No, they're not REAL christians... No, that's not REAL science.Your mental gymnastics are amazing! Testable and replicable REAL science shows that the Earth is not young. Yeah, riiiiight. That stupid Earth Science hasn't taught us anything!Oil, Faith. Oil. Its really really old. Only if I'm willing to lie to myself! But anything for The Bible, right?I mean, screw what Jesus taught us. Let's woship a book!I can't believe you. I gotta throw another one of these out there: I'm literally dying on this end. Laughing at you. You're so ridiculous it hurts.

Yup. If they were the same age, you would see crabs fossilized in the same rocks as trilobites, and eurypterids in the same rocks as sea bass. But you never do. Never. Not ever.

The erosion is visible. That would be why we can see it. So is the tipping of the strata below the Great Unconformity. So is the uplift of the freakin' Colorado plateau.As for "caused by Flood water runoff", exactly how many floods were there, exactly? How many times did the water run off, and what deposited the strata above the places where the flood ran off? Did it run off and then come back again? Just as soon as they stop lying.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's awfully circular, madam. It is "the consensus interpretation of the Bible-believing churches that the Bible is the word of God, and the plainest doctrines of it are agreed upon by all." How do you define "Bible-believing churches"? By your own subjective interpretation. For example, you would argue that the Roman Catholic church is not a Bible-believing church. But that is based on what you perceive to be the right interpretation of scripture.Put differently, your interpretation is in fact only limited to a few Protestant sects, and is not a widely held view in the rest of Christendom. Given that there are various interpretations of scripture, why should we trust your subjective interpretation as being the truth? This is my question to your "Because it's the truth, Paul, because it's the truth." What you really mean is this: "because my subjective interpretation of scripture is the truth, Paul, because it's the truth." But if it's subjective, it's not really true, though, is it?

That's not something you can SEE, Coragyps, that's THEORY you impose on what you see that causes you to believe there is an age difference.My point, to try to get back to it, is that the stack of strata to the naked eye (and not close enough to make out fossils), shows no signs of age differences whatever, and that there was no appreciable disturbance to them at all until the canyon was cut through the whole stack. Don't give me teeny little disturbances like erosion between layers that you have to get up close to see and was no doubt caused by water runoff after the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Dr. A's latest off topic post on that Tectonics thread, about heliocentrism: Interesting I must say, I hadn't known that.I would suggest that they still had some Roman Catholic influence hanging over them because it's now clear that heliocentrism is not Biblical and we know it was Aristotlelian.However, you don't give context so I'm not entirely sure what they are saying. Who is the "fool" Luther is referring to and what did he say? Calvin's remark that you can't put Copernicus above the Holy Spirit is certainly indisputable as a general principle. And Melanchthon is also correct that we must put God's word above anything that contradicts it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The erosion between the horizontal layers is NOT visible with the naked eye unless very close up.I'm talking about the neat horizontal layers from ABOVE the Great Unconformity to the top of the canyon. According to Establishment Geology those were in place just as undisturbed as they look today for a couple billion years or so. Sorry if my number of years is incorrect, but in that ballpark certainly. They are OBVIOUSLY UNDISTURBED TO THE NAKED EYE, just sitting there neatly horizontally until the canyon was cut through them.As for the other visible disturbances, yes they are also visible and I'm going to have to start including them with the formation of the canyon. Here's the theory: The tipping of the strata below the Great Unconformity, the unconformity itself, and the uplift all occurred at the same time as the cutting of the canyon, according to what I've been arguing here. It was all one event. Those strata could not have been in place for more than months or a year at most when that event with its separate effects occurred. The Flood deposited the entire stack of sediments with their fossil contents over some hundreds, maybe even thousands of square miles, quite flat and horizontal from Arizona through Utah and even into Nevada and California, all in some unknown but relatively short period of time, weeks at a minimum, year at max.After they were all in place to a depth of at least two miles, tectonic and volcanic force from beneath caused the tilting of the lower strata and the formation of the Great Unconformity, the heat forming the schist and the volcano supplying the granite, and at the same time raising the entire stack into the uplift.That uplifting of the stack caused the upper layers to crack and remaining Flood water or perhaps the water from remaining standing lakes in the area, flooded into the cracks taking chunks of strata with it, and carved out the canyon. Massively debris-laden water. After the canyon was carved out and the water settled down to a roar forming the horseshoe bend and all that, the water between the exposed layers was continuing to run off. Probably for quite some time.There's the whole picture. It's really very reasonable and geological.In any case creationists have other theories than your own and not lies.Your attention to this matter is much appreciated.
Yours truly.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

One resource: Max Weber, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. America had the most amazing growth of prosperity of any nation ever, and the explanation has to do with the influence of Protestantism, the work ethic for starters.I've got some really good conservative Christian studies of these things I can quote from. Maybe later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I cannot think of a better way to encapsulate Faith's entire position on science and the bible than this one sentence. Her beliefs hold up quite well, unless you actually look closely at the evidence.

Oh honestly, cleverness at the expense of thinking.I'm talking about looking at the walls of the Grand Canyon from some distance, from which you can see their nice neat flat horizontal undisturbed condition UNTIL THE CANYON WAS CUT THROUGH THE ENTIRE STACK, which occured at the same time as the formation of the Great Unconformity and the uplift. The minuscule amount of erosiojn between the layers is NOT "disturbance" of any magnitude to suggest the old age of the layers. And besides, why should there be any erosion at all if they just sat unexposed to weathering for billions of years.Try opening your bias-blinded eyes and thinking for a change.

The irony is strong in this one.

I DEFINE IT FOR PURPOSES OF MOST DISCUSSIONS HERE HISTORICALLY, by the great names in its history who agree on the BASICS of the faith. By the standards you are employing here you all ought to recognize that your belief in evolution is just as personal and "subjective" as you keep imputing my beliefs to me. Do that and then we can get back to reality. The true Church is the Reformation Protestant Church. They showed why Catholicism is a false church, how it is a completely other religion than the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. This is objective fact. That's false. Until recently it most certainly was THE Christian church, and it still includes the vast majority of the churches, not just a "few." It has been shrinking over the last century or so thanks to corruptions of various kinds but it is still THE Church. If you count the Roman church and all the apostate churches which have been springing up like mushrooms over the last century and a half you'll get a false view, but if you count back to the apostolic era all those who make the Bible their authority you'll find a line of consensus that is the true church, including many groups outside the Catholic church. No, I don't mean that. I maintain that I represent the mainstream of Bible believers and historically recognizable Biblical Christianity.

I could make a good case that the growth had more to do with the frontier effect, the lack of a developed and entrenched bureaucracy, and plentiful energy supplies.Those conditions are rapidly changing, and the growth is diminishing.Hmmmmm.

No. They didn't sit unexposed to weathering for billions of years. Hence the erosion.