Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

Actually strictly speaking it is not the evolutionists who postulated the way geological layers have been laid down. It was the geologists. It just happens that evolutionists accepted the science of geology and creationists don't. In fact the "notion" of OE preceeded Darwin and was one of the "notions" that informed his theory.

Every time you postulate a world wide flood you are using the Bible in your arguments, regardless of whether you got there by reading creationists or by reading the Bible yourself. I think Nuggin's point was that no one ever came up with the idea of a world wide flood by studying geological layers. However, Hutton did come up with the idea of an OE by studying geological layers. If you are intellectually honest you have to deal with that truth regardless of whether you find it convincing for yourself or not. In fact, it clearly is NOT obvious that a flood is the better explanation, otherwise geologists, who know something about sediments ahd how sediment layers form and erode, would spend a lot of time explaining why a flood can't be the explanation. In fact, they never talk about why it couldn't be a world wide flood except when challenged by a creationist.edited out extraneous word.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-08-2005 03:23 PM

Problem here Faith is you are stacking your "seems to me" up against the whole science of geology. Doesn't that bother you even a little bit? On what basis do you claim such confidence? If it is belief in the Bible, then say that, but don't think for a minute you are getting your confidence from the rock layers, because you can't be. Virtually no one who studies rock layers full time agrees with you so how is it that you know so much more than they do?

And once again, if you are talking about a worldwide flood as fact you ARE using the Bible. The flood did not come from a geology textbook. It came from the Bible. So it is not out of bounds to attribute your arguments to the Bible. It is dishonest for you to say that you are not using the Bible. This is not a scientific forum but honesty is still required.

Geologists (who would be in a better position to know than you, with all due respect) believe that Hutton got it mostly correct. The only major issue where they would disagree is that Hutton proposed a virtually infinite age for the earth whereas modern geologists believe it is close to 4.5 billion years. Again, on what basis do you challenge modern geological science other than the Bible?

How exactly did I "pull rank"?Saying you are leaving out the religious considerations does not make it so no matter how often you repeat it. The notion of a flood comes from the Bible. The Bible is a religious book. So how are you leaving out religious considerations?

Well, except for the "brief period part", this is what Hutton said, so it is not an alternate explanation. How is this explanation consistent with a flood? Remember you have to get the lower layers laid down, lignified, then pushed up with the ends vertical, the vertical edge eroded to a horizontal plane in some cases, and upper layers laid down and lignified. No, it could not have happened this way and I believe someone has already explained to you why in another thread. Geologists can tell whether an intrusion was into air or into an existing layer by the crystalization structure at the interface. Also, the intrusion has been eroded to a horizontal plane before the deposition of the upper layers. How do you explain that, flood wise? Again you are repeating claims that have been pointed out to you as being not consistent with geological science. Layers do no deform this way when they are "relatively soft". Lignified (rock) layers deform this way.

Yes, nice picture. Now read my response and look at the unconformity just to the left of hurricane fault. It is a beautiful illustration of my point about the vertical layers being eroded to a horizontal plane before the upper layers were laid down.edited spelling.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-08-2005 04:45 PM

As I said. Saying it isn't so over and over will not make it not so. The only people who say a worldwide flood occured do so on religious grounds.On edit: Oh and in case you were thinking otherwise, it has not escaped my notice that once again you have not addressed my point by point rebuttals of your YEC explanations of unconformaties.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-08-2005 10:24 PM

With a definition that wide any question is scientific "in nature", including "is the earth flat?" Such questions fall under the category of "too trivial to be scientifically interesting." This is sort of like a junior high school science fair project where the student asks the question, "Can a bean plant survive without water?" Well no it can't. There is no need to do the "experiment" because though a scientific question, it is so trivial it ceases to be interesting.

My point was that some questions are too trivial to be scientifically interesting. Questions that the scientific community has "settled" long ago such as the worldwide flood question just do not merit any further study.

Isn't the term "lithified," not "lignified?"Yes, sorry.

Ok your main argument here seems to concern deformation of horizontal layers. Of course the deformation occured after the layers were laid down. Who had said otherwise? How is this a problem for OE geology? It isn't. It is a problem for flood geology, however, because all of those layers could not have been laid down, pushed up, sometimes eroded again, more layers, etc within the time frame of the flood AND the time to the present day.

It is not contempt to say something is not scientifically interesting. If you can't avoid taking things personally you shouldn't be on a debate board.

I always thought it looked more like white chedder anyway.