Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for and against Flood theories
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1020 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 28 of 112 (168788)
12-16-2004 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by edge
12-15-2004 11:43 PM


Re: Some more flood questions
Hey Edge, I was thinking of the same area though a little lower in the section. Coincidence??? lol
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-16-2004 01:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by edge, posted 12-15-2004 11:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by edge, posted 12-19-2004 8:04 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1020 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 29 of 112 (168789)
12-16-2004 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jazzns
12-14-2004 6:52 PM


Re: Some more flood questions
Jazzns writes:
Moreover, does anyone know of any good examples where we see this kind of this in the column?
I recently read a new paper by Karl Kellogg on the geology of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison (*.PDF document).
Although it's a professional paper from the USGS, it is a very easy, non-technical read and perfect for the interested layperson. It reads more like an in-depth park brochure.
What it does nicely, I think, is go through the geologic history of an area, starting at the bottom of the strat column with the oldest rocks, and moving up through time to the youngest rocks at the top. It paints a nice picture of the processes that formed each group of rocks and the canyon itself. Looking at the strat column and reading the descriptions of the rocks shows the complexity of the rock pattern. It's not simply a straight forward depostion of generic sediment from a column of water.
One thing you never see in YEC literature is what exactly the rocks mean. To YECs, a shale is a shale, limestone is a limestone, and sandstone is sandstone. But to the rest of the geologic world, these rocks represent dynamic and ever-changing environments, and the relationship between the rocks is just as important as the rocks themselves.
A rock is a single frame in time - geologic columns are movies!
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-16-2004 01:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2004 6:52 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jazzns, posted 12-16-2004 11:04 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1020 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 79 of 112 (176035)
01-11-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by TheLiteralist
01-11-2005 9:50 PM


Re: SeaShells on Mountain Tops
Literalist, are you aware that limestone is currently being deposited and it requires specific temperatures, depth, biota, and time?
What creationists need to do is explain how exactly flood waters can deposit and form limestone, shale, sandstone, siltstone, dolomite, diatomite, evaporites, volcanic layers, lithified sand dunes, conglomerates, mega-conglomerates, tuffs, etc., and all these rocks are intercalated throughout the entire rock record.
Not only that, creationists also have to explain how these flood-deposited rocks can have animal tracks, nests, paleosols (ancient soil horizons), roots, paleokarsts, eolian deposition (cross-bedding in dunes), red beds (required oxygen), and a whole host of other things.
Today, we can see all of these sediments being deposited and the environments in which they occur (except for maybe dolomite) - NONE of which involve flood waters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by TheLiteralist, posted 01-11-2005 9:50 PM TheLiteralist 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