|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5907 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: glaciers and the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I dont know which I am looking most @
For me, I do not know which pic I am looking MORE at. That is prerequisite to reading much in the Croizat method. I might have misplaced the notion of the creationary view of the ice aga in this part so for me I get stuck somewhere near INNSBRUCK. This might be only due to my lack of knowledge of the area so perhaps a European has an opninion. So when I say I am confused this is indeed a limit in my thinking and hopeing that some other creationist has already written something that will turn this light bulb on in my mind’s eye. I can say that the word why I use IS NOT anything political as just came up today on NPR when the former gov of NJ was interviewed and the question was put if religion had anything to do with science ( climate change study, stem cells, teaching evolution). The dialog there answered with somewhat of a why but the governor was clear to keep science out of it. The why I referred to does have some play in the same word philosophy only but is academic at the point or place where one might think the difference of good will and free will. But again making any freedom change a group willing goodly into freeness would NOT be by legislation nor by EVC fiat nor need it occur to necessarily have science progress. The issue probably arises only because students seem to have lost the ability to think to (or from) physio-theology. So if I had to guess why I could not say it would be because I would like to read a creationist on the ice — age have me think FROM physcio theology not only to ethical theology. It might be that I just didn’t look hard enough. So to rephrase — I was suggesting that the creationist research on the ice age is in a place where evolutionist research needs to be if it is ever to try to get beyond the NZ’s approach to Croizat’s methodical investigation. So I don’t see a scientific reason against creationist work as long as noncreationscience does not try to explicate with more tools continuity of simulations. But for the poltical type thought on NPR that is likely causing an inhibition of society moving in this direction. And I have experienced in the past that the philosophy that prevents this is the feeling that Jacob junk yard mentality IS the way that biological change occurred. I know this is not the case by reading Agassiz on the ice berg but I would need to show Hutchinson mistaken as to beetles first and THAT latter not the former is what also has me bogged down culturally as to what I might by my own merits be able to accomplish. It is some what hard to read in the pictures where I noted in yellow.Croizat had said, quote: I really only tried to say the same thing in my own words. Evos would disagree with this in general, I would suspect. There is no doubt the creationary veiw DID "speak" for the ice age and this would be taken by some evo as NOT a good thing. I read it the other way around, but before I can ACTUALLY get all the way around this text I need to see more in his pictures. There may be a difference between us, but he died the year before I got to Cornell. I would like to see an abreviated version of panbiogeography come out and if the creationary view of the ice age spurs us onto this, I say, all for the better! Thus without this qualitative "factor" I figured we still had his pre-Darlington ptolemic biogeography despite SOME quantification by New Zelanders conta AMNH. If Gibbs' function minimzation was the cause of the meausre then one might proceed without the creation account but so far I see more c than e activity despite the opposite being the case here in this thread so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Couldn't do without dessert I see..
Or was that the main course?
quote:I think you are looking at all of them.. at the same time.. upside-down.. with colors inverted. This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2005 16:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Brad's message 63 not showing up - Message 62 is/was last displayed.
This should be message 64. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
TC edited his post at about the same time I sent. I only had said that he was correct, that there was *all^ to this post. I myself had to do a system restart so someone else is probably tryin to "listen" in or I am just as paranoid as my more computer literate brother is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allenroyboy Inactive Member |
quote: Come on, Joe, you know full well that flood catastrophists utterly reject all uniformitarian dating of the geologic record as irrelevant to their model. So your argument here is irrelevant to a catastrophic flood model. The majority of flood catastrophists place most of the geologic record as having been placed during the flood cataclysm. They are not going to try to put the flood somewhere "within" some small part geologic record. So the arguments should be concerned with if the strata can be emplaced in a catastrophic environment. Allen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allenroyboy Inactive Member |
quote: Oard addresses, in detail, multiple glacial episodes in his book. He concludes that:1) proposed uniformitarian causes for a single ice age are hoplessly inadequate, even more so for multiple ice ages. 2) The glacial-interglacial fringe depositional sequences simply represent multiple regression and surges of a single ice age. 3) High erosion along the fringes of the glaciers is due to high precipitation and melt water as the glaciers regress. Oard's model proposes a "warm" global environment. I recommend reading Oard's book first and then criticizing his model. If Oard's model is so bad, it should be a piece of cake to rip it appart. But, creationay cataclysmists won't take you seriously unless you actually read Oard's detailed model. Allen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I recommend reading Oard's book first and then criticizing his model. If Oard's model is so bad, it should be a piece of cake to rip it appart. But, creationay cataclysmists won't take you seriously unless you actually read Oard's detailed model. Sorry, no can do. I can't possibly keep up with the reading that I should be doing. Maybe you could elaborate on a few points?
Oard addresses, in detail, multiple glacial episodes in his book. He concludes that: 1) proposed uniformitarian causes for a single ice age are hoplessly inadequate, even more so for multiple ice ages. Why is that?
2) The glacial-interglacial fringe depositional sequences simply represent multiple regression and surges of a single ice age. Well, I suppose if we go far enough north, or south, the ice age is still with us. So then, there must be some connection of the current ice age with the flood, or at least with Oard's model?
3) High erosion along the fringes of the glaciers is due to high precipitation and melt water as the glaciers regress. Oard's model proposes a "warm" global environment. Actually, I'm not sure this is the case. If so, shouldn't we see more evidence of erosion across northern Ohio, etc.? Are we confusing alpine glaciation with continental glaciation here? (Just trying to get back into this thread here. Seems kind of old and dusty.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: C'mon Roy that's a cop-out and you know it. If 'most' of the geologic record was deposited as a result of the flood, then some of it was not. That means that it should be reasonable to ask (using uniformitarian layers for terminology purposes only) what layer marks the onset, which layers preceded the flood, which layers formed during the peak stages of the flood and which layers formed after. I'm not asking you to accept the dating of the layers, I'm asking you to use the names as a common reference. Wanna try again? Heck, I'd settle for you telling me what 'most' means in your terminology? Is what uniformitarians refer to as the Paleozoic flood or not flood? How about the Mesozoic (flood or no flood?). The Cenozoic (flood or no flood)? Or do you assert that superposition of strata is totally meaningless even compressed to a 6000 year (or 1 year) time interval? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allenroyboy Inactive Member |
quote:I'm aware of a hand full of creationary catactclysmic flood models [you mentioned Setterfield for one] Some begin and end the flood in different parts of the geologic record. However, the more popular ideas put the beginning of the flood with layers that are typically called 'Cambrian' and put the end of the flood in layers typically labled 'Tertiary.' Flood cataclysmic geologists believe that 'superposition' is the most important 'law' of geology. What they disagree with is the typical interpetation of depositional environments. The current sedimentary rock classification system is based on the uniformitarian concept of three primary depositional environments (with many sub-environments) -- marine, non-marine (i.e. continental) and transitional. Such a classification system automatically precludes interpretation of the geologic record as the result of a global cataclysm of Biblical perportions. Flood cataclysmists agree that such a classification system is valid as long as there has not been a global flood, but they believe that there has been such a global cataclysm. Therefore, any classification system based on the idea that there was no global cataclysm is bound to be inadequate. As a result, there is now a concerted effort among flood cataclysmic geologists to develop a new interpretive classification system of sedimentary rocks. Just as uniformitarian geologists base their classification system upon their belief in naturalism, Flood cataclysmists base their interpretation upon their belief in the Biblical record. Most flood cataclysmists are Christains, meaning that they believe in Jesus as their savior. Not only is Jesus their savior he is also the creator.
quote:As God and Creator, Jesus the Word spoke to us telling us what he has done and what he will do. quote:He did this by moving men to write. quote:Thus, believers in Jesus have confidence that the books of the Bible are not a collection of superstitious myths, but rather, they reveal the truth about God, what he has done, and are for our good. quote: So when Christians read where Jesus reveals to us through his prophets that there was a global cataclysm, they place full confidence in it. Nature, as it functions now, is not cataclysmic, but we know through the Witness who was there, who caused it, and who has told us about it, that the ordinary was superceeded by an extraordinary global event. Therefore, how nature functions now can not be the model by which to interpret the geologic record. It will be inadequate at best. So, Flood cataclysmists look to the rare and limited cataclysmic events to model the Flood cataclysm. Allen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I fail to see how this is somehow a bad thing. It seems good that, very good in fact, that there would be an alternative in which a catastrophic fundament finds the foundation of the alternative. Your explanation of the "classification" in thrms of marine, not marine and transitional, has cleared up my query. Thanks! I was stuck on life and did not see that there was another topographical solution I had not provisioned for. Thanks again!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: I know, I find that most intriguing. I know it does not bother you (even though it should), but shouldn't a global cataclysm of such importance be easy to recognize in the geologic strata? Yet it seems there are only a handful of creationists who even attempt to be pinned down on specifics (I know why!).
quote: JM: Yes, so how is it that layers from Cambrian through Tertiary contain hundreds (if not thousands) of paleosols? These ancient soil horizons require time to form. They contain rootlets and burrows indicating a thriving (and non submersed) community. You can find them all over the globe and all through the geologic column. They are utterly unexplainable in terms of a global flood.
How do you explain the presence of glacial deposits in the Ordovician for example in your flood model?
What flood produces massive aeolian deposits?
What were termites doing establishing colonies and building giant nests in the midst of this global tempest.
The reason creationists don't have a uniform model? If they did, they'd be hard pressed to explain the observations. They need to be nebulous in order to convince their brethren that the flood is possible when the geologic record is unequivocal in its rejection of a global flood. How do they explain the 10's of thousands of meters of Precambrian sedimentary rock?
quote: So how were the above mentioned rocks 'superposed' in the flood?
quote: JM: No they don't. They simply won't be pinned down on the specifics.
quote: JM: Nonsense. Creationists have no good explanation for paleosols throughout the geologic record. They cannot explain the existence of termite mounds in the midst of a global tempest. You can cover your eyes, but you cannot hide.
quote: JM: But it's obviously not clear to them what represents the flood deposits. I know why. Agassiz understood why. The reason is quite simple, there was no global flood.
quote: JM: The 'system' was NEVER based on the assumption that no global flood occurred. That's inventing history.
quote: JM: Baloney, they've had hundreds of years to demonstrate the flood.
quote: JM: Baloney, the classification system has nothing to do with philosophical beliefs. Christians, Muslim, agnostic and atheist scientists were all responsible for studying ancient depositional environments. It's only ye-creationists who refuse to see what the rocks are telling them.
quote: JM: More Christians are not flood cataclysmists, meaning that they also believe Jesus is their savior. The fact that a few have chosen to believe an ancient flood myth has nothing to do with their salvation. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Interesting too-
Joe can it be fairly certain that the bulbuous nature of the propounded burrow across layers is not caused by a geomorphic process as in the white area at below what looks to have been what was called the "burrow"? I notice some structure albeit of smaller dimension in the lower left. Can the good geologist confidently assert that that is of a different cause than say phil the hedgehogs' ancestor' niche construction? I was hopeing that negative entropy was an existant enough concept to entail a determinate judgement on those kinds of observations but Georgi Gladyshev has disabused me of that kind of thinking. i dont have that expertise. Just a question if you have the time to answer - no pressure - This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 15:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
allenroyboy Inactive Member |
quote: INTERPETATION! INTERPRETATION! INTERPRETATION! Like I said before it all comes down to which paradigm you choose to do science within -- Naturalism or Creationism. As I'm sure you know, and probably choose to reject purely out of prejudice, AiG has the following response to your claims about paleosols.
quote:And these articles in CRSQ quote:And you say quote:Rootlets? Where are the roots? What kind of natural mechanism could rip all the rootlets off the roots and then only preserve the rootlets? If rootlets are preserved in-situ then the roots should be also. quote:Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows. quote:Some burrows are reinterpreted as the result of animals burrowing the way out of a quick burial. This does not explain all structures that are interpreted as burrows. Creationary cataclysmists are doing what they can as they can. quote:Are they tillites?? Oard has published research on this. quote: quote:More interpretation! Both the Navajo and Coconino sandstones have been interpreted as aeolian deposits. However, flood catastrophists have long pointed out the evidences fits underwater deposition far better. Austin's book "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe" discusses these evidences. quote:As a child I climbed on, played around and tore apart huge termite mounds in Kenya, Africa. I never saw any that looked remotely like this. quote:If you will read material from AiG and CRSQ, but I'm certain you don't and won't, you'll see that creationary scientists are far from being nebulous. The geologic record is also far from unequivocal. It all depends upon which paradigm you choose or unknowingly work in by default. quote:It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions. And, ALL such presupositions come from philosophical beliefs. I find it astonishing that you seem unaware of this most basic of scientific philosophy. But, then it may not be all that odd, given that the evolutionary and humanistic guided education system fails in any real education. And they wonder why, after nearly a hundred years of indoctrination, that 80% of the USA population still believes in God and Creation. The difference between what evolutionists see in the rock and what flood cataclysmists see in the rocks depends upon the foundation they interpret upon.
quote:It runs about 50/50 between those Christians who accept flood cataclysm and not. Jesus must also be one of the few who believed in the ancient flood "myth."
quote:What kind of salvation can there be when the supposed savior is so gullible he can't comprehend truth from fiction? Why should anyone put any trust in a future second coming when it is compared to a non-event? No. Jesus the Word, is the same Creator God who caused the Bible to be written so we would know the truth and who caused Noah's Flood to happen and now is coming again to bring salvation and everlasting life. If people don't believe in the Flood, then why bother believeing anything else, since it can't be true either. The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is with Naturalism and Evolutionism which has deceived the world into thinking that science can only be done within Naturalism. Science can also be done within the philosophic foundation of Creationism as well. Furthermore, "Beyond scientific Creationism" in Dec. 2004, CRSQ [ The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) ] points out that Naturalism has borrowed all it's philosophical presuppositions from the Bible. The great scientific synthesis of nature could never have happened if it had not been for Christianity. Allen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1705 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
More interpretation! Both the Navajo and Coconino sandstones have been interpreted as aeolian deposits. However, flood catastrophists have long pointed out the evidences fits underwater deposition far better. Austin's book "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe" discusses these evidences. Then you'll have to explain terrestrial tetrapod tracks found here: http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grand3.htm
"Trace fossils are sorted in the same fashion as the fossils themselves. This is significant, because even if we accept the creationist hypothesis that differential escape can account for the absence of the remains of any living terrestrial organisms in flood deposits, we should still expect to find the footprints of these animals. In the Colorado Plateau region, for example, we find 3-400 tetrapod tracksites, in numerous different formations, spanning 5 geologic periods from the Pennsylvanian to the Tertiary. Please explain how these tracks formed in the middle of a flood and how the were preserved in the raging floodwaters that dropped the entire Phanerozoic record in one year.
Creationary geologists are working on reinterpretation of burrows. Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation!
As a child I climbed on, played around and tore apart huge termite mounds in Kenya, Africa. I never saw any that looked remotely like this. Hmmm, could it be explained by ..., well, ... evolution?
It is impossible for anyone of any persuasion to do any science without a set of presuppositions. And, ALL such presupositions come from philosophical beliefs. I find it astonishing that you seem unaware of this most basic of scientific philosophy. Well, maybe you should refute those beliefs rather than attempt to attack the interpretations.
But, then it may not be all that odd, given that the evolutionary and humanistic guided education system fails in any real education. And they wonder why, after nearly a hundred years of indoctrination, that 80% of the USA population still believes in God and Creation. Funny how all the scientists who discovered evolution were YECs before they saw the data. If these presuppositions, as you call them, are so strong isn't it odd how this happened? If you have a better explanation, please let us know about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Paleosols: digging deeper buries 'challenge' to Flood geology Missing Link | Answers in Genesis I'm no geologist. Perhaps you can check this link and let me know what it is actually saying about the first of the Joe Meert examples? (the Missouri one) We will have to also wait till Joe gets back to give us some more info. They seem to be "analysing" and critizing the Missouri example [i]from the photograph![/qs] Would you confirm if that is the case or not? If it is you don't actually expect that to be taken seriously do you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024