Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 46 of 183 (241420)
09-08-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
09-08-2005 3:51 PM


Since I do my best to follow the geological reasoning and leave out religious considerations, your job is to deal with the geological reasoning and to leave out the religious considerations. Pulling rank is not fair argument.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:56 PM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 183 (241423)
09-08-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by deerbreh
09-08-2005 3:49 PM


Re: World wide
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?
I found evolutionistic ideas to be unprovable before I became a Christian. Since I became a Christian I've seen that there are good reasons to doubt them. I'm not a geologist but I have a good visual and mechanical imagination.
Hutton couldn't explain uncomformities right? Upended vertical or diagonally slanted strata topped by horizontal strata. That's what made him an old-earther.
One possible alternative explanation is that tectonic forces pushed up settled strata before the next layers were laid down on top of them over a relatively brief period of, say, years, or even less.
Or, as it happens to look to me at the Grand Canyon area, the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace the entire stack because of its enormous weight. So the weight of the upper stack was a counterforce that prevented the verticalized lower stack from doing more than uplifting the upper stack at the area of the Grand Canyon. This is what is seen on a cross section of the area.
The layers must have been still relatively soft as they maintain their even horizontal configuration over the entire slope caused by this force from underneath, the rounded area to the north of the north rim of the canyon that then slopes down rather steeply to a flat area upon which the higher strata of the Grand Staircase continue upward in broken segments. Throughout the whole area you see canyons, the Grand Canyon being the most dramatic, because it is situated right over this magma bubble. The ones to the north, where the strata remain horizontal, are smaller. However, they all look like large cracks in clay. Enormous quantities of material must have washed away, some of it down the canyons, especially the Grand Canyon, as clearly the strata were built up at one point at least to the highest layer in the Grand Staircase area, and all that has been washed away leaving steep cliffs where chunks broke off and no longer exist.
Here's a link that has a very nice drawing of a cross section of the area, showing the uplift to the north of the Grand Canyon and the other canyons all looking like cracked clay to my of course both arrogant and inferior imagination. Also the ascending cliffs, which are the inspiration for the name Grand Staircase, which certainly are the remaining ends of strata that once covered the entire area but broke off and eroded away, maybe by the force of a receding worldwide flood.
Requested Page Not Found (404)
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-08-2005 04:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 3:49 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 4:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 51 by Jazzns, posted 09-08-2005 4:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by iano, posted 09-08-2005 4:59 PM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 48 of 183 (241431)
09-08-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
09-08-2005 4:10 PM


Re: World wide
One possible alternative explanation is that tectonic forces pushed up settled strata before the next layers were laid down on top of them over a relatively brief period of, say, years, or even less.
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.
the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace the entire stack because of its enormous weight.
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?
The layers must have been still relatively soft as they maintain their even horizontal configuration over the entire slope caused by this force from underneath,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:34 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 11:01 PM deerbreh has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 183 (241434)
09-08-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by deerbreh
09-08-2005 4:31 PM


Re: World wide
Please see link I just added to my above post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 4:31 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 50 of 183 (241435)
09-08-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-08-2005 3:48 PM


Re: World wide
You did not discuss the Appalachians, but gave another example as if it applied and never showed that it did. You have said nothing about what condition the Appalachians were in when they were folded, and your examples of stressed rocks were not from the Appalachians.
What the heck are you talking about? Nuggin asked a question about granite. You responded with a paragraph about sedimentary structures. Two completely different beasts.
Oh by the way. I also went back and read your post over. You are wrong about the angles of the deformation making the Appalacians erode slower. A steeper surface causes a structure to erode faster. In other words, right now the Rockies are eroding faster than the Appalacians. How then did the Appalacians wear down to nubs while the more erodable Rockies still stand tall?
You yourself admitted that had the rocks actually been soft
Absolutly false. I stated that in extrodinarily rare instances we see deformation happen to unlithified rocks. Either you didn't understand or you are misrepresenting me. Please clarify and correct.
the stress indicators would not have been so dramatic as they are on hardened rocks, but microscopic. Someone posted a site a long time ago showing the folded strata of the Alleghenies that exposed them to erosion. You never addressed that, then or now.
I have no idea what that has anything to do with this conversation. I often interact with the forum using a text based browser so I can't see pictures. If I have time when I get home I will look at the Alleghenies formation but even if it one of the rare examples of deformation without lithification it is still only the minorty of the fact that most rocks are lithified when bent.
Nuggin has not yet addressed anything I've written. If he's talking about granite he doesn't bother to say where.
It is right there in his post to which you responded. Either you didn't read it, chose not to engage the point honestly, or you don't understand the difference between granite and sediment.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 51 of 183 (241441)
09-08-2005 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
09-08-2005 4:10 PM


Re: World wide
Or, as it happens to look to me at the Grand Canyon area, the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace the entire stack because of its enormous weight. So the weight of the upper stack was a counterforce that prevented the verticalized lower stack from doing more than uplifting the upper stack at the area of the Grand Canyon. This is what is seen on a cross section of the area.
Are you talking about the strata beneath the great unconformity? I appologize if we are talking about different things here. I can't see pictures.
If you are talking about the deformation below the great unconformity then what you state is factually impossible. When I get my thread on relative dating off the ground you are welcome to join and see why. Under no circumstances were the layers below the great unconformity deformed after the higher layers were laid down. This is a fact and again not debatable.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 52 of 183 (241442)
09-08-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
09-08-2005 4:34 PM


Re: World wide
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 12:13 AM deerbreh has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 53 of 183 (241450)
09-08-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
09-08-2005 4:10 PM


Re: World wide
Faith writes:
I'm not a geologist but I have a good visual and mechanical imagination.
Faith writes:
One possible alternative explanation is that tectonic forces pushed up settled strata before the next layers were laid down on top of them over a relatively brief period of, say, years, or even less. Or, as it happens to look to me at the Grand Canyon area, the entire stack could have been laid down already, even up to the height of the Grand Staircase, and already compressed greatly, after which magma from beneath displaced some of the lower stack and forced them in a vertical direction. This force was not great enough to displace....
I was considering doing a "Post of the Month" on this as an example of blatant humilty that could only derive from God - but given that you were supposed to be taking a rest I figure the extra attention would be counter productive.
Faith on Geology....becoming all things to all men methinks

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 4:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:11 PM iano has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 183 (241484)
09-08-2005 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by iano
09-08-2005 4:59 PM


Humble chutzpah maybe?
Hullo Iano.
I was considering doing a "Post of the Month" on this as an example of blatant humilty that could only derive from God - but given that you were supposed to be taking a rest I figure the extra attention would be counter productive.
Faith on Geology....becoming all things to all men methinks
Blatant humility huh? Are you serious or being ironic? No POTMs for me in any case, please.
It's true I don't give a lot of credence to the theories of the opposition and can sound pretty arrogant as a result, especially considering that most of what I know about geology I've learned from being at EvC lo these many moons. But hey, there WAS a worldwide flood so there's nothing wrong with trying to figure out how it happened, and I've also had the experience of praying about it and being shown various aspects of the situation.
Sometime I'd like to see the opposition seriously defend the Flood, just as an exercise, the guys with the geological knowledge. I wonder if they're up to it. I mean seriously, not Nuggin's idiotic caricatures.
Oh well. I like to think about this stuff. Of course they may boot me out of here any minute because they don't like the way I think about it. They already booted me off the science fora, and not even for posting ON the science fora, as a matter of fact, just saying that I don't allow that the Bible is open to question, and I said it on a Faith and Belief thread. Sigh.
My first post here a few months ago was on a science question, so I'm not "becoming" anything I haven't already been. The problem is that the opposition likes to offer this or that concrete specific objection without bothering to really think about the whole problem from the YEC's point of view, which puts the whole weight of it on me, while half a dozen of them vie with each other to bury me under this local problem and that local problem. I guess that's kosher because this is Debateland after all but it just means I have to pick and choose and not get bogged down in it all, which of course makes them more irate. They never acknowledge any good point I make, and I've even made a few on this thread so far (I take that back, Crash once said he got a lot out of my arguments about the natural limits / population genetics discussion, but I don't remember any others; holmes likes my writing though. I'm very clear apparently, though I have nothing much to be clear ABOUT. Anyway. I'm not really complaining. What else would I expect? But having to answer a zillion objections makes it difficult to pursue a line of thought.)
On a great debate some months ago many pages went down in which I was berated up one side and down the other for not calculating the rate of deposition in relation to erosion, when my whole point about erosion had nothing to do with the loss of quantity but only with the disturbance of horizontality -- which was stated clearly in the very first post. This kind of thing seems to happen pretty frequently, and it's hard to combat something when you can't figure out what it is they are thinking and it just hits you as nonsense, and abusive at that. Doesn't encourage give and take to say the least. Or they'll give an example of something that does in fact occur -- somewhere -- without demonstrating any connection to the actual point in question. Jazz has been doing that with his stressed rocks bit. Sometimes someone like Nuggin will create total confusion by making up an absurd caricature that has nothing to do with anything. Or someone will impute stupid stuff to me like thinking a tree is a cabbage or the like, schrafinator in that case. Randman is gone, alas, or I might expect to have a little help on my side here, but then he's not a YEC anyway.
Weird about taking a break. I AM taking a break, oddly enough, limiting my time here quite a bit, getting a lot done away from the PC. But my normal work load also stopped for a few days so I don't have that reason to limit my time here at the moment. I do limit it however because of other objectives.
I don't recall what your position is on these questions, or maybe you haven't said?
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-08-2005 07:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iano, posted 09-08-2005 4:59 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 10:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 64 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 10:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 79 by Jazzns, posted 09-09-2005 12:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 183 (241502)
09-08-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by deerbreh
09-08-2005 4:06 PM


So how are you leaving out religious considerations?
First, there is nothing "religious" about the idea of a worldwide flood. It either really happened in real time and on this real planet or it didn't.
Second, if I take it as my premise, it is still not a "religious" consideration. That is your own assumption, not mine.
Third, if I address only the physical phenomena then I am leaving out "religious" considerations. Those are your own preoccupation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 4:06 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 09-08-2005 8:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 9:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 61 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 10:18 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 183 (241507)
09-08-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
09-08-2005 7:56 PM


How is sandstone formed.
First question. In your alleged flood, how is sandstone formed?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 183 (241525)
09-08-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
09-08-2005 7:56 PM


First, there is nothing "religious" about the idea of a worldwide flood.
If the Bible said Noah escaped a meteor impact instead of a worldwide flood, but everything around looked the same, would it be a flood or an impact that you would be arguing here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 58 of 183 (241526)
09-08-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
09-08-2005 2:34 PM


Re: World wide
you don't have to face being challenged as a YEC does
Meaning, with evidence that countradicts my belief. Yes, I don't have to face that challenge, because my belief is based on the evidence.
For the record, I lived in Arizona for 5 years.
As for your repeated points that you've "been here longer than I have", I don't really see how that's relavent. I would suggest that I could give you another couple of years headstart, it still wouldn't change the facts or you belief system.
And, as for your insistance that all of this is not religious based. Okay, I believe you. It's just remarkable that your theory is so much like the Great Flood story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 2:34 PM Faith has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 183 (241531)
09-08-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
09-08-2005 3:27 PM


Re: The flood water evaporated up
You'd sound a lot less foolish if you would address the actual arguments that are used instead of making up such ridiculous straw men. You'd sound a lot less foolish if you would address the actual arguments that are used instead of making up such ridiculous straw men.
The ONLY differences between my theory and the theory your YECs are spouting are that 1) My theory actually accounts for what we see and 2) I'm not asking for money / selling a book based on my theory.
And, I don't think you're in any position to judge who's sounding "foolish".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 60 of 183 (241535)
09-08-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
09-08-2005 3:48 PM


Re: World wide
Nuggin has not yet addressed anything I've written.
Let me address everything you've written here-
Just because something "seems" a certain way to you, even though you have NEVER seen the source material and have not studied the field of geology, and are going exactly opposite of what professional geologists will tell you, and are contradicting numerous other sciences, doesn't mean we have to take you seriously.
You want a serious discussion about geology, start by disproving my upside-down evaporation theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-08-2005 3:48 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024