What Faith cannot seem to grasp is that her questions and objections about the geological column (read, "the broad, overall history book of the earth") are very much like this. Going on, and on, and on, about a collection of discontinuous geological minutiae is precisely as ridiculous as complaining that the birth records of Luigi's ancestors in San Gimignano don't address the details of Jose's Spanish ancestors in Madrid. Proceeding to then complain that, since neither record can be found in Europe - A History by Norman Davies, history texts are somehow dishonest, is, well, make up your own adjective.
When I began reading this thread, this is exactly the analogy I was thinking of. Expecting the geologic column to be complete at every place on the Earth is like expecting to recover the entirety of human history in a single bore hole at a single dig site.
Would christians complain if we said there was no history of the Hebrew people because a single dig site in Canada did not turn up Hebrew artefacts? Of course they would complain, but that is exactly what they are demanding of geologists.
That is, it is not just any old pile of dust or eroded material, it is not just any core sample, it is not just any sequence of layers of this that or the other, it does not include igneous rock and so on and so forth, which is what I've been arguing here.
Of course the geologic column includes igenous rocks. In my part of the world, the Snake River cuts through some beautiful geologic history, thanks to the hotspot that is currently under Yellowstone.
For example, you can see multiple lava flows stacked on top of another near Twin Falls (also known for it's BASE jumping off of the Perine bridge):
You can also find glassy rhyolite from slow moving lava flows in the local geologic column:
I find it strange that someone would claim igneous rock is not part of the geologic column when it dominates the geologic column in my part of the world.
Here is a rather rough outline of human history that no one should find that controversial.
Let's call this "THE human history". With that idea in place, does this mean that at any spot on the globe that there are human artefacts from every single event on that list directly underfoot?
If human history really did unfold as described "THE human history", shouldn't I be able to go to any spot in the world, start digging a hole, and uncover layer after layer of human artefacts from every single century of history that follows the exact order of the timeline given above?
Or, is the timeline given just an amalgam of knowledge gained from different finds at different sites, and stitched together from clues that link all of the different dig sites together into a whole?
That's good, that's an answer. But those places are awfully limited when you compare the great extent of some of the layers that extend across states and continents. The Sahara desert is often pointed out as an exception, since its extent is even greater than the whole of the USA, but the Sahara is not a rock layer. But there are at least those few limited areas Percy pointed out where sediment is accumulating on top of the Geo Column as I've described it. And we won't know for a few million years I guess whether what is building on them has anything at all in common with that Column in the end.
Where do you think those sediments will go? Do you think a sand layer is going to magically start digging through the dirt below it, and bury itself at a random location somewhere under the surface? What exactly do you think happens when sediments pile on top of other sediments.
For example, this is Lizard Butte, a cool little formation in SW Idaho near where I grew up. It has the notoriety of looking like a horny toad sunning on a little mound (The head is at the top of the butte, the two left limbs drape over the sides in case you can't see it). The rock at the top of the butte is old volcanic rock from a lava flow.
Now, do you think that top soil started to gather atop the volcanic rock, and then it magically started moving around and buried itself under the lava flow? Or, was the dirt already the top layer of the geologic column, and the volcanic rock deposited over it forming a new layer on the geologic column?
Which do you think it is?
Edited by Admin, : Hide bad image link that makes page take a very long time to load.
Edited by Admin, : Hiding the image doesn't disable it - I'll disable it this time.
No, you are wrong wrong wrong. It is NOT a presupposition, it IS an observation and if it turns out that there is volcanic activity during the Flood that is NOT a big deal, it's just a shift in the timing of things.
Then what would be a big deal?
What features in a geologic formation would be inconsistent with a recent global flood? What type of observations would falsify a recent global flood?
Re: Good for evil and evil for good, black for white and white for black, bitter fr swt..
I don't have a theology apart from the Bible, it has shown itself to be clearly God's word, and I'm solidly within the tradition of Bible believers down the centuries and particularly since the Reformation, which is as Bible-focused as you can get.
It only shows itself to be God's word in your eyes because you throw out any evidence that contradicts it. You have already said as much.
So if it wasn't God's word, you wouldn't know it.
Where on earth have I said anything about my theology or anything else being "infallible?"
In message 480 you wrote:
"Perhaps you could say I'm trying to make science fit the Bible, but certainly not the other way around. The Bible is God's production, but Old Earth science is humanly created."
You are treating the Bible as infallible, throwing out science that doesn't fit the Bible.
When you say that such-and-such geologic feature is consistent with a recent global flood, what are you really saying? Aren't you really saying that no matter what that geologic formation looks like, you will consider it to be consistent with a recent global flood?
Surely you can see why your claims don't hold water, or aren't that convincing.
You guys make me laugh. And cry. I could read the Bible to you where it is so plain and simple and says how the Flood happened and you'd twist it into something else. I could quote a dozen high profile Bible believer teachers who teach what I believe and you'd just prefer some guy who interprets the Bible by making it mean whatever he wants it to mean and accuse me of being the one doing the twisting. I guess there is no cure for this.
Agreeing on what the Bible asserts says nothing about its accuracy. You seem to be confusing the two.
How do we determine whether or not a recent global flood occurred? Just read the Bible over and over until we are convinced? Does the geologic evidence not matter?
And then there is the constant refrain that I provide no evidence for my assertions. But my assertions are just a way of saying "Look!" Just "look for yourself," the evidence is right there, on the cross sections etc. I point something out, but instead of looking you point something else out.
We point to all of it. We don't cherry pick like you do. Pointing to one flood deposit does not make the lack of flood deposits in another formation go away.
I have allowed myself to hope that maybe somebody here, just one person, one of the posters or a lurker, doesn't matter, would just recognize the truth in what I'm saying, just "get it" but that isn't going to happen is it? Good thing I can laugh at it at least some of the time.
Actually, we get you just fine. There is no evidence that will ever change your mind. You have already decided that there was a recent global flood before you even looked at these geologic formations, and no charatcteristic or feature in any geologic formation is going to budge you from your current position.
I already took into account that it wouldn't maintain horizontality but it should at first since it would just lie over whatever was already there, distorted or not, just not after being distorted itself.
Let me see if this is right.
You claim that if there was a recent global flood, then the layers should be horizontal. Now you are saying that non-horizontal layers are also consistent with a recent global flood.
It begs the question . . . what wouldn't be consistent with a recent global flood?
No I am not saying that layers would be horizontal NOW, only when they were deposited, after which faulting, in this case, deformed them. The point was that NEW deposition on top of old deformed layers would deposit with a horizontal flat surface and even if that was subsequently also deformed it wouldn't conform to the shape of the previously deformed strata.
Isn't that exactly what we see with the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon?
What you seem to be asking for are "anticlines", of which there are tons of examples. For example:
blah blah blah science this and science that. The thing is if you don't know by now that I wouldn't confuse sedimentary with volcanic, and treat it as a simple misspeaking, but in fact ridicule me as if I could really make such a mistake, you are not worth talking to. This kind of thing is all too common in this madhouse. That and a dozen other abuses of logic, reason, sanity and civility I could probably list.
The greater question is how you can confuse a geologic record strewn with multiple volcanic layers with a geologic record with no volcanic layers. Had you never heard of tuffs, flood basalts, or lahars?