Evidence of the flood

quote:

---

AS OPPOSED TO BEING BASED ON THE BIBLE. READ IN CONTEXT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! THE POINT IS I'M ONLY THINKING THROUGH THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND NOT RELYING ON ANYTHING ELSE.

---

I disagree that your arguments can be reasonably understood as "thinking through the physical situation" not least because you rarely bother to get a proper understanding of the physical situation, but also because you come up with bizarre hypotheses which seem to be physically impossible.

quote:

---

It's all based on the Great Unconformity's tilting and the strata in the Supergroup and the granite and the schist and the magma fingers, all ililustrated on the cross section, illustrated as confined to the basement area beneath the Tapeats. This is what is interpreted on the standard theory as having to have occurred before the strata were laid down, but I'm interpreting it as having occurred afterward and I give evidence for that.

---

In other words you have no idea if the physical situation really supports your claim - even apart from the merits of your argument.If there is anything about the monadnocks themselves that suggests that they were produced by upthrust rather than erosion you don't know it and haven't bothered to find it. It's just an assumption invented to support your weird fantasy.So no, you haven't based your assertion on physical evidence at all. You have none that directly bears on the question at all.

What's physically impossible is the absurd idea that the GU is the root of a former mountain range that grew up and then eroded down to flatness before the strata started building above it. Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep. Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon. Or that a whole scenario of a "time period" could have existed where there now is only a vast flat slab of sedimentary rock, let alone dozens of them. Or that mammals evolved from reptiles. Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles.

Not even any attempt to reference any aspect of reality. Faith the Great and Powerful spake thusly and lo! it is so!

Yeah I do foolishly rely on people to be able to grasp obvious points. My mistake.

quote:

---

What's physically impossible is the absurd idea that the GU is the root of a former mountain range that grew up and then eroded down to flatness before the strata started building above it.

---

The physical evidence points to exactly that happening. And why do you think it is impossible? Seems to me that with enough time it could happen.

quote:

---

Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep

---

I don't think anyone has said that.

quote:

---

Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon

---

The evidence says that it did - helped by uplift of the plateau, and additional erosion of the exposed walls. Even you have been known to admit that the meandering sections were carved by the river, and if those were then there's no sensible objection to the river carving the rest of it, too.

quote:

---

Or that a whole scenario of a "time period" could have existed where there now is only a vast flat slab of sedimentary rock, let alone dozens of them.

---

And now you are just being daft.

quote:

---

Or that mammals evolved from reptiles.

---

The evidence says that they did, and if you want to make a claim of physical impossibility it would be nice to have some argument.

quote:

---

Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles

---

Unlikely events are generally not physical impossibilities. And I'd say that it is statistically certain that it has happened, many times. (To make a simple point, any change a mutation might make could be reversed by another - therefore, for every possible mutation that might make a "healthy" allele into an "unhealthy" one there is a mutation that could convert the "unhealthy" allele back to a "healthy" one)There must be possible mutations that would produce "healthy" alleles - whatever that means - and the idea that some physical law would selectively prevent those from occurring is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard.

What does everyone think of this comic? Does it realistically portray the basic difference between Creationism and ToE Science?

The point is they aren't obvious points. In fact they are false. You make them up and call it "observation".How many rock formations have you studied in the field? I'm betting on zero.

The Creationist Method is: deny evolution, ignore or misrepresent any facts that do not support creationism, oh, and deny evolution and science in general.

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

Not if the interaction is magical and undetectable.

---

If it is undetectable, then it didn't happen. Note, not merely "undetected" but truly "undetectable." "I moved the couch across the room, but you can't detect it...to you it looks like it's still where it always was, but it's really over here. I know it looks like you're sitting on the couch where it always was, but you're really floating in mid-air because the couch is really over here."That makes no sense. If an action is to have an effect, it necessary leaves a trace: Specifically, the effect. I can't see gravity. And we really don't have that great of an idea as to what it is. But we can most certainly see its effects. The very concept of "dark matter" comes from the fact that we can't detect where the (presumable) gravitational force is coming from. But the reason we think there's something there is because we can detect the effect: The galaxies are spinning beyond what our understanding of gravity can account for.Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If something touches you, then you necessarily touch it. If this god is going to affect things in the universe, then we will be able to see them when they happen...and thus perform experiments. If there are no effects that can be detected no matter what, then there is no cause.A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:

---

If God is magically inserting a spirit into each human at say, conception, and the spirit is immaterial, then such insertion would not be detectable.

---

And if it does absolutely nothing, then it doesn't exist. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:

---

Since I don't accept your first premise, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of God is not provable or disprovable by philosophy or science.

---

And since I don't accept your claims, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of god is most decidedly provable or disprovable by science given a useful definition of "god."So now what?

Still no evidence supporting your position.All you can do is complain about the impossibility of an old earth and established geological processes.For instance, I can show that what we see beneath the great unconformity looks pretty much like what we see in modern mountain chains and that the erosion is very similar. on top of that, rock evidence and radiometric dates back up the idea that the GU is an erosional surface.All you are giving us is stories. Fantastic ones, to be sure, but exactly no evidence.

there's actually a lot of evidence on the cross section that I've made use of. The rise in the stack of strata could only have occurred after they were all in place, the confinement of the magma beneath the Tapeats is likewise evidence that the strata were already there, and my hypothesis that the GU was sliding between the two levels completes the picture.(ABE: As a matter of fact the giant quartzite boulder that is embedded in the Tapeats sandstone some distance above the GU line, that is shown in the British Creationist video that I've posted here before, is evidence of this sliding since it is a quarter of a mile from its point of origin. The British Creationists interpret that as evidence for a slurry flow but I think my interpretation works better./ABE)And what actual evidence do you have that the sediments deposited slowly around the gigantic quartzite monadnock? Even quartzite breaks down under that much exposure. You think it just remained there thrust, what is it, 800 feet toward the sky for millions upon millions of years?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The boulder of course works perfectly well as evidence of normal erosion of the monadnocks. Given that you have no evidence of any upward movement at all - no movement in the lower strata, no faults where the monadnocks moved up it would seem to be the obviously better explanationLikewise consider the fault in the tilted strata at the Great Unconformity. While one section is -or was - higher than the other they are eroded to the same level. How could that possible happen underground while leaving no other evidence at all? Try thinking things through for once.

Just because you can explain the boulder in some other way doesn't make your explanation the correct one. How does your explanation account for the boulder's being a quarter mile from its source?Erosion to the same level is explained by the movement of the GU. It's not going to differentiate between the heights, it's going to abrade them to the same level because it can't do anything else. abe: sort of like how an extremely heavy object would lop of protrusions of different heights to the same level just because it's so heavy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

None of that is evidence. It's all hypotheses.

This is absolutely bizarre. Here you are talking about the source of a boulder, and you were talking about the monadnocks; but at the same time you're saying everything was planed off to a flat surface. Monadnocks are, by definition, not flat.