Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TEMPORARY: So how did the GC (Geological Column) get laid down from a mainstream POV?
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 117 (10717)
05-31-2002 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
05-31-2002 1:14 AM


Just what I needed Joe
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 1:14 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 62 of 117 (10718)
05-31-2002 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Minnemooseus
05-30-2002 1:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I'M NOT A GREAT EXPERT ON SEDIMENTOLOGY - I MAY BE WRONG - BUT THIS IS AS I SEE IT ---
This could be posted in any of several topics, but this one seems as good as any.
First a definition: Marine sediments - Sediments deposited in a marine environment.
Now, let me break down marine sediments into two types:
1) Chemical precipitates, and sediments having a large chemical precipitate component - Example: Limestones
2) Clastic sediments - Example: Sandstones
Now, I wish to focus in on the marine clastic sediments, deposited upon the continents, during a sea transgression, stand, or regression.
First of all, the vast bulk of marine clastic sediment deposits are reworkings of pre-existing sediments, be they marine or non-marine. Sometimes there may well have been multiple reworkings. But, ultimately, the origins of these sediments is rock material weathered, eroded, transported, and largely deposited in a non-marine environment. The sediments are marine in that the final deposition was in a marine environment. But even then, they probably have a substantial history prior to that final deposition.
Summary - Marine clastic sediments, deposited on the continents, are largely the reworkings of what were originally non-marine sediments. These sediments were not coughed up from the deep ocean basins (and even those sediments originally came off of the continents), nor were they precipitated out of the sea water.
Moose

The above is message 27 of this topic. It was posted less than 24 hours ago. A lot has been posted since, too much to fast for me to digest yet.
TB, in message 27, I was trying to stress the large significance of non-marine sedimentary processes. In message 28 you stated that you agreed with what I said in message 27.
Still, the main point you seem to be trying to make, is that the marine sedimention is of vast significance, and the non-marine sedimentation is of minor significance.
Comments?
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-30-2002 1:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 1:37 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 1:39 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 63 of 117 (10719)
05-31-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Joe Meert
05-31-2002 1:14 AM


I am still short of time for this sort of discussion, but I am going to revisit this area and take some photos of erosional contacts in June. This region has epeiric sea deposits and other wonderful geologic relationships. I should be back to normal in another day or two.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 1:14 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 64 of 117 (10720)
05-31-2002 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Minnemooseus
05-31-2002 1:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The above is message 27 of this topic. It was posted less than 24 hours ago. A lot has been posted since, too much to fast for me to digest yet.
TB, in message 27, I was trying to stress the large significance of non-marine sedimentary processes. In message 28 you stated that you agreed with what I said in message 27.
Still, the main point you seem to be trying to make, is that the marine sedimention is of vast significance, and the non-marine sedimentation is of minor significance.
Comments?

JM: We're skirting the main issues here. The simple observation is that there is no 'flood model'. There is merely conjecture based on this outcrop or that. There is no globally correlatable strata marking the onset, peak and post flood. Both TC and TB claim it's Cambrian through Tertiary, but this is not detail. The idea here is to say something like:
The onset of the flood is marked by the Weaverton formation in the eastern US, the Fish River Formation in southern Africa, the Tapeats sandstone in the western US, the Todd River Formation in Asutralia etc.. The features in these units are consistent with the onset of the Noachian flood due to (A) fill it in (B) and so on. HEre are photos of these correlative features and a clear explanation as to why ONLY a Noachian type flood can explain ALL THESE FEATURES. All the rest of the arguments are smoke and mirrors to avoid issues such as paleosols and glacial deposits found within the sequence that is supposedly flood related. I would like to demand that the creationist start by taking two Paleozoic sequences (say Africa and the Eastern US) and show using photos, detailed analysis and correlation how the two sequences fit perfectly into the Noachian flood scenario at the expense of modern geology. If you are not willing to partake in such an exercise, then I suggest you re-examine your model.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2002 1:24 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 2:14 AM Joe Meert has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 117 (10721)
05-31-2002 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Minnemooseus
05-31-2002 1:24 AM


OK, I've got your point Moose. I agree that the source of the sediments is non-marine from a mainstream POV. For us it is presumably due to both (i) catastrophic freshwater erosion (the 40 dyas of rain - condensed tectonically heated steam in our view) and (ii) catastrophic marine inundation. In either case the source material would be continental. So I agree.
But in terms of the origin of the waters that laid the geological column, the eperic seas are certainly primarily (just about all?) marine and represent the major proportion of the palezoic and mesozoic eras. Then in betwen these epeiric sea deposits it seems to me (based on eg grand Canyon area) vast but smaller neatly layered non-marine deposits. In the 200 million years or so of the paleozoic I only see evidence for a handful of genuine unconfromities displaying localized phenomena (which for us would be due to the dregs of regression and the beginnings of the next fresh water surge from the highlands).
I find this way of thinking of the geolgoical column to be internally concictent and accounts for the data rather nicely. Even for the mainstreamer no one would doubt it is important to closely consider the qualitatively different aspects of the geolgoical column and I doubt that what I have said (minus the flood geology!) would be denied. On top of that I find the flood explains all three qualitatively different aspects 'naturally' (in the scientific model sense).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-31-2002 1:24 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2002 12:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 117 (10722)
05-31-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Joe Meert
05-31-2002 1:37 AM


I claimed Cambrian to Cretaceous Joe. I suspect the tertiary was due to flow from recent catastrophic glacial melting and associated sea level rise. I am fully aware that this is under fierce creationist debate.
For now I am happy to put forward a qualitative flood model as follows:
1. Catastrophic tectonics induces sea level surges (IMO induced by accelerated radioisotpic heating)
2. Tectonically heated steam condenses as rain
3. Continents experience 1 and 2
4. This generates massive marine depositions on land under rapid flow
5. During retreat it become catastrophic sheet ersosion/deposition fresh water event due to the catastophic rain.
6. Due to topographical relief the sheet deposition degenerates into lower energy local events carving out local features.
7. This iterates three or four times via tectonic induced global sea level effects.
8. The last cycle of fresh water erosion carves out feautres like Grand Canyon out of relatively soft beds.
9. The ash in the air due to tectonic activity generates a nuclear winter which initiates the formation of glaciers in the highlands at the higher latitudes.
10. As the ash falls out we get glacial melting and formaiton of more fresh-water and, due to sea-level rises, marine depositons.
11. Everything settles down over a few hundred years to modern day rates by purely deterministic processes of tectonic cooling, glacial warming and associated sea level stability.
I wont lay that down in stone but I doubt my view on the above will change an awful lot. I'm convinced this scenario is consistent enough to qualitatively explain a lot of the data. I'd be the first one to agree that I wouldn't expect everything to intuitively pop out of such a model.
PS - I awould love to see the sort of analysis you are talking about Joe, from both the long-age and flood point of views. If anyone does have links/refs showing world wide correlations of local geological columns (ie including many multiple epochs), eg showing which cusps on the sea level curves correspond to which local eperic sea I would be fascinated. Otherwise I'll have to piece it together myself.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 1:37 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 10:10 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 67 of 117 (10739)
05-31-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tranquility Base
05-31-2002 2:14 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]I claimed Cambrian to Cretaceous Joe. I suspect the tertiary was due to flow from recent catastrophic glacial melting and associated sea level rise. I am fully aware that this is under fierce creationist debate.[/QUOTE]
JM: Do you know that fellow OZzie creationist Barry Setterfield claims the flood is entirely Precambrian? You guys have to get together on this. Seems to me that something as catastrophic as a global flood would be more easily indentifiable. Your two models, for example, aren't even close. Your Noachian flood starts when he says it ends!
quote:
For now I am happy to put forward a qualitative flood model as follows:
JM: Of course you are happy with a qualitative model because such models are full of wriggle room and they allow you to talk in vague sweeping terms. Surely a scientist understands the terminal futility of constant hand-waving.
quote:
I wont lay that down in stone but I doubt my view on the above will change an awful lot.
JM: Don't worry, every other creationist I know won't either. That's the problem though!
quote:
I'm convinced this scenario is consistent enough to qualitatively explain a lot of the data. I'd be the first one to agree that I wouldn't expect everything to intuitively pop out of such a model.
JM: Of course you are, but you started with the conclusion and are searching only for generalities that fit your conclusion. Do you know how dangerous that is both scientifically AND apologetically?
quote:
PS - I awould love to see the sort of analysis you are talking about Joe, from both the long-age and flood point of views. If anyone does have links/refs showing world wide correlations of local geological columns (ie including many multiple epochs), eg showing which cusps on the sea level curves correspond to which local eperic sea I would be fascinated. Otherwise I'll have to piece it together myself.
JM: I'm sure you would. My father always said "If you want the job done to your satisfaction, do it yourself". I think these words are quite appropos.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 2:14 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 9:44 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 68 of 117 (10741)
05-31-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tranquility Base
05-31-2002 1:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, no, I wasn't saying that 'flat surface erosion' can't deposit 1000s of feet. I was doubting that you could show me a non-marine example in operation today. This is just a misunderstanding Edge - we have to both remember that we are coming fom opposite directions!
You still don't get it. Erosion cannot deposit sediments. These are different processes in different areas. My point is that you complained earlier that I was mistaken in saying that you misunderstand geological processes. I simply am putting this up as supporting evidence that you indeed do not understand geology.
quote:
Newly eroded plain? Well I can't see why you would expect a neat plain to stay uneroded for millenia. Where are they today? Any flood plain today is either recently deposited or heavily eroded!
There are plenty of erosional plains, such as much of the northern Canadian Shield. There are also plenty of depositional plains such as the Atlantic coastal plain. One thing is for sure, and that is that they have been flat for as long as there have been humans around to observe them. I understand there are some perfectly flat plains in Texas for instance that have been that way since at least human occupation. Ever been to the midwestern US? Some awfully flat plains there.
quote:
I realy don't see why one can't get meander in soft sediments.
You can, but that's not the point. High energy environments don't produce them. The Grand Canyon was at one time a shallow gradient meandering stream. Not exactly what one would expect from a rushing torrent. So, how do you explain this?
quote:
You can't just state some long age dogma, what is the reason?
I do not. I am simply making evidentiary observations. Your theory needs to explain them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 1:00 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:13 PM edge has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 117 (10774)
05-31-2002 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by edge
05-31-2002 12:09 AM


--Tried to post this last night, got disc though.
"So, how do you explain the meander loops in the Grand Canyon?"
--Meandering as well as steepness would have been causes of both slow and rapid flows. slow flow would have been characteristic of flood water abating, though rapid flows would have been produced post-flood when the majority of the canyon would have been carved cataclysmically. This is similar as I argued it a couple months ago in another Flood thread.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 12:09 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by edge, posted 06-02-2002 11:18 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 71 of 117 (10777)
06-01-2002 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tranquility Base
05-31-2002 1:39 AM


Note by edit: This message duplicated the previous, so I have deleted #70. - Moose
From TB:
quote:
OK, I've got your point Moose. I agree that the source of the sediments is non-marine from a mainstream POV. For us it is presumably due to both (i) catastrophic freshwater erosion (the 40 dyas of rain - condensed tectonically heated steam in our view) and (ii) catastrophic marine inundation. In either case the source material would be continental. So I agree.
First of all, I must presume you are totally taking the YEC position. As such you are not only compressing the 500+ millions of years of the Phanerazoic into the flood and post flood period, but are also crunching the 4 billion years of the Precambrian into the pre-flood period.
Now, I must ask you. What is your vision of the pre-flood version of the earth's geology? And what what is your vision of original created earth's geology? Did God create the earth with an apparent image of great age?
It would seem that the ultimate origin of all the earths sediments would have to be igneous (and metamorphic?) crystaline rocks. Now, a few thousand years of uniformitarianist processes could produce some sediments, but not remotely the volumes that you are reworking and depositing in your flood (vast mountains would have to be torn down to produce that amount).
Which seems to leave Gods having produced a young but old looking earth. It doesn't seem feasible that, even if it rained 40 inches per day and the mountains were continuosly pounded by tsunamies, for a decade, that the requires amounts of sediment could be produced. Not to mention that that would be pretty tough on the ark.
Or, perhaps, you could just invoke a miracle, and concede that scientific finding have no relevence to explaining the situation.
Moose
*******************************************************************
NOTE BY EDIT (6/2/02): I HAVE (MORE OR LESS) SPUN OFF THE QUESTIONS OF THIS MESSAGE, INTO A NEW TOPIC "YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?" AT EvC Forum: YEC Geologic Column - Created with apparent age?
*******************************************************************
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-02-2002]
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 06-02-2002]
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fixed link that had gotten totally thrashed by the passage of time (aka software upgrades).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-31-2002 1:39 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:40 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 72 of 117 (10819)
06-02-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by TrueCreation
05-31-2002 11:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So, how do you explain the meander loops in the Grand Canyon?"
--Meandering as well as steepness would have been causes of both slow and rapid flows. slow flow would have been characteristic of flood water abating, though rapid flows would have been produced post-flood when the majority of the canyon would have been carved cataclysmically. This is similar as I argued it a couple months ago in another Flood thread.
Please explain. How does 'slow flow' related to abatement of the flood produce meanders? Do you have modern examples? Wouldn't it be easier to say that they formed in a way similar to modern meanders? Where is base level in this scenario?
Could you also please amplify a little more on how the canyon walls would stand if they are composed of recently (one year old) deposited sediments that are, by definition, water saturated? Do you have examples of thousand foot cliffs composed of sand and mud anywhere in the world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by TrueCreation, posted 05-31-2002 11:23 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by TrueCreation, posted 06-06-2002 6:38 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 117 (10839)
06-02-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Joe Meert
05-31-2002 10:10 AM


Joe, I think Setterfield is on his own on the Precambrian flood.
I agree that I don't want to hand wave forever. I await the installments from the career flood geologists. I do mainstream protein folding and genomics so it wont be me!
I know you think we're trying to shoehorn geology but that's not how it feels to me. Lyell was critisied from many corners for 'a priori' reasoning (it's outlined in Hallam's 'Great Geo Controversies') as well so the creaitonists wouldn't be the first to do it! We see it as a model and we're 'fitting' it and testing it like any model. Even the standard model of paticle physics has 26 undetermined parameters!
I am thinking of summarizing some data from good examples of local geological columns. Is there some classic 'atlas' of local geological columns? I like things neatly set out and sometimes one does just have to do it oneself.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Joe Meert, posted 05-31-2002 10:10 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 117 (10840)
06-02-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by edge
05-31-2002 10:38 AM


Edge, thank-you for the correction in terms on erosion. But I think it's clear that the ultimate phenomonon of layered beds has a two fold mechanism: (i) erosion and (ii) a depositional environment, regardless of geobable (which I am enjoying learning BTW so keep correcting me).
Do you really know if your plains are producing strata that look like those in the Grand Canyon or do you just assume it? I'm just raising the question.
Becasuse of soft sediments it's possible that the regression was slow enoug ht ogenerate meander andfast enough to carve it out. I'm not claiming anything other than plausibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by edge, posted 05-31-2002 10:38 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by edge, posted 06-03-2002 1:25 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 117 (10842)
06-02-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Minnemooseus
06-01-2002 12:21 AM


Moose, yes, I am taking almost the standard YEC position.
Good quesiton about pre-flood rocks. The standard YEC stance would be created bedrock and then non-fossil containing layering from creation day 3 when the land emerged from the sea. My personal theology on this issue is that I tend to believe (although I'm not overly dogmatic on it) that the creation days were 1000 year days as discussed in 2 Pet and Psalms (in the context of creation and the flood). This sounds like day-age stuff but I believe it for theological reasons (1000y days obviously wont allow for evoltuion etc anyway).
The 1000 year days has a fascinating story behind it. Basically earth history can be conidered as a creative 'week' and a redemptive 'week'. The redemptive week is 7 1000 year days starting from 4000BC. We get 3 lots of 2000 year periods that align with Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively. The 'father dispensation' begins with the father of all (Adam, 4000BC) to the father of 'all who believed' (as Abraham is called 2000BC). The 'son dispensation' begins with an only begotten son (Isaac, 2000BC) and ends with 'the' only begotten son (Christ, about 0 BC). The 'Holy Spirit' dispensation begins with the first 'outpouring' (Acts 2, 30AD) and ends, in this scenario, with the promised and in some opions begun 'last' outpouring of he Holy Spirit (about now). In Heb 4 'another' rest day like that of the creation week is described and this is clearly the Millenium = 1000y of Revelations. So in this scenario we could possibly, although non-dogmatically, expect the creation week to be 7000 years as well. This would give possibly enough time to generate the layers as the earth came up out of the sea on day 3. Standard YECs would probably insist this occured in a literal 24 hr day whereas my opinon would be that it occurred in a 1000 year 'day' as hinted at in Heb 4, Rev 22, Psalms and 2nd Pet. So that's a theological reason for having more time to create vast pre-flood sedimentry formations. It also has more important consequences for some Christians obviously. It's obviously hooey for a lot of other people of course.
You think our flood couldn't have generated the flood rock sediment? Mt St helen's demonstrated carving out of hard rock as well which suprsied me. I am satisfied that the flood, although instigated by God, occurred thourgh primarily actualistic means. The details are yet to be worked out, sure. God seems to have a habit of 'first the natural, then the sprititual' as my triune dispensational view of earth history (above) hints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2002 12:21 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-02-2002 11:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 76 of 117 (10850)
06-02-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tranquility Base
06-02-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Moose, yes, I am taking almost the standard YEC position.
Good quesiton about pre-flood rocks. The standard YEC stance would be created bedrock and then non-fossil containing layering from creation day 3 when the land emerged from the sea. My personal theology on this issue is that I tend to believe (although I'm not overly dogmatic on it) that the creation days were 1000 year days as discussed in 2 Pet and Psalms (in the context of creation and the flood). This sounds like day-age stuff but I believe it for theological reasons (1000y days obviously wont allow for evoltuion etc anyway).
I've "bolded" your "etc"! Not only would your 1000 year days not allow for evolution (biological); it would not allow for evolution (non-biological). A lot happened in the precambrian, including the production, movement, and deposition of a vast amount of sediment. Where is this sediment really coming from?!
quote:
The 1000 year days has a fascinating story behind it. Basically earth history can be conidered as a creative 'week' and a redemptive 'week'. The redemptive week is 7 1000 year days starting from 4000BC. We get 3 lots of 2000 year periods that align with Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively. The 'father dispensation' begins with the father of all (Adam, 4000BC) to the father of 'all who believed' (as Abraham is called 2000BC). The 'son dispensation' begins with an only begotten son (Isaac, 2000BC) and ends with 'the' only begotten son (Christ, about 0 BC). The 'Holy Spirit' dispensation begins with the first 'outpouring' (Acts 2, 30AD) and ends, in this scenario, with the promised and in some opions begun 'last' outpouring of he Holy Spirit (about now). In Heb 4 'another' rest day like that of the creation week is described and this is clearly the Millenium = 1000y of Revelations. So in this scenario we could possibly, although non-dogmatically, expect the creation week to be 7000 years as well. This would give possibly enough time to generate the layers as the earth came up out of the sea on day 3. Standard YECs would probably insist this occured in a literal 24 hr day whereas my opinon would be that it occurred in a 1000 year 'day' as hinted at in Heb 4, Rev 22, Psalms and 2nd Pet. So that's a theological reason for having more time to create vast pre-flood sedimentry formations. It also has more important consequences for some Christians obviously. It's obviously hooey for a lot of other people of course.
All I can say is, theological mumbo-jumbo, having nothing to do with the interpretation of the geologic record.
quote:
You think our flood couldn't have generated the flood rock sediment? Mt St helen's demonstrated carving out of hard rock as well which suprsied me.
The material "carved" at Mt. St. Helens was not hard rock! Much of it was flour like dust, as easily eroded as anything. And in the "book" of sediments of the earth, the Mt. St. Helens produced sediment is perhaps a "letter".
quote:
I am satisfied that the flood, although instigated by God, occurred thourgh primarily actualistic means. The details are yet to be worked out, sure. God seems to have a habit of 'first the natural, then the sprititual' as my triune dispensational view of earth history (above) hints.
Much of the details have been worked out. The evidence indicates that God's process of creation took many millions of years. Radiometric dating indicates that it took billions. What you are proposing has nothing to to with actualism.
Care to visit the "Uniformitarianism" topic?,
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-02-2002 10:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-03-2002 12:01 AM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024