Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 66 (353041)
09-29-2006 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
09-29-2006 3:44 AM


Re: Not going to work
quote:
ALL rocks are flood rocks -- except maybe bedrock and volcanic intrusions from beneath -- but those are best explained in relation to the flood too.
That's just your opinion - it isn't even accepted by all YECs.
Worse for you, by your own admission you are not competent to work out what explanation is the "most reasonable". If we look at secondary consideratiosn we can observe that mainstream geology is scientifically a great success while flood geology is a failure. It follows then that your only basis for your assertion is a belief that you personally must be correct.
quote:
The rest of your post is just the usual accusations based on who knows what so this is all I want to say.
It is based on the facts - for instance the fact that you keep attributing your views to God, but never actually give any evidence that He actually said any of it. Why not consider the possibility that God did NOT say a word of it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 47 of 66 (353120)
09-29-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
09-29-2006 3:44 AM


Re: Not going to work
Faith,
There is a topic on Angular Unconformities here just a couple weeks old. Can you comment there on how you might think a global flood could produce such a formation.
Angular Unconformities falsify the flood with not much wiggle room. It would be evolutionary falsification equivalent of finding hominid remains inside the fossilized rib cage of a Jurassic dated T-Rex.
Also Angular Unconformities are very common and stand as a stark and powerful testimony of a long and complicated geological history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 4:43 PM iceage has replied

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


Message 48 of 66 (353208)
09-29-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by iceage
09-29-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Not going to work
No I'm not up to unconformities at the moment. I don't see what the problem is, however. After the layers were laid down, tectonic forces upended some and slid things around, over and under each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 12:41 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 7:03 PM Faith has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 49 of 66 (353236)
09-29-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
09-29-2006 4:43 PM


Re: Not going to work
quote:
I dont see what the problem is
The problem is insurmountable from a YEC perspective and is why YEC's are largely quiet about them and avoid discussing them.
The beauty about angular unconformities is that it does not require a technical geology background to understand how they were formed. There are no assumptions about things, like decay rates, that you cannot see and feel. They can be observed directly and you can often put your hand on the contact zone.
BTW unconformities are decidely not formed by hard rocky parts sliding around via tectonic forces with some parts ending up "over and under each other". The upper layer material is often embedded in the lower level over an uneven eroded surface. Another reason why this is obviously an incorrect model is that the upper layer often extends for miles. There is no way a piece of rock of this length to thickness ratio could just be sliding around without crumbling apart, especially if the material is soft from just being laid down as is often believed by YEC.
I invite you take a moment and look at the evidence.
Take for example Siccar point the lower formation consists of slate that has be laid down, cemented and went thru metamorphis (shale -> slate). In addition, the lower layer shows signs of bending indicating great heat and pressure consistant with the metamorphis. This layer was buried deep at one time.
This layer was lifted, upturned via tectonic forces and eroded with a definable horizon.
Next a second period of deposition occured and components of the lower layer are present, mixed with the newly deposited sandy material. This layer was also lithofied (cemented). Next tilting of these combined layes. And finally the upper layer was eroded to expose the contact point.
The Great Unconformity at the bottom of the grand canyon present even a more difficult case. The bottom layer consists of several different types of rock including intrusions. The upper layers are several thousands of feet thick and tens of miles long.
These sequence of events dictates long, long lengths of time.
I don't know why Christians resist this notion of deep time that is really beyond our puny comprehension. We know that the universe consists of immense distances and scale. Why not also time? It is as though YEC Christians need to shrink God down to human scale. It must be insulting to God.
Edited by troxelso, : Spelling mistake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 4:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 12:08 PM iceage has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 50 of 66 (353242)
09-29-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
09-29-2006 3:44 AM


Lava Layers
Which layer in this interesting formation from Yellowstone Park is the flood layer?
Are we to believe that all three sediment layers are laid down during the flood year with two intervening subarial basalt flows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 09-29-2006 3:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 12:21 PM iceage has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 66 (353248)
09-29-2006 8:53 PM


Hey, everyone, I found a professional geologist who's a YEC.
At least ... he's a YEC when he's not being a geologist.
Account Suspended
Doesn't that just say it all?

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2006 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 52 of 66 (353250)
09-29-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
09-29-2006 8:53 PM


Snelling is a clown who writes submissions confirming radiometric dating for geological journals, then writes articles for sites like ICR decrying radiometric dating. Go figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2006 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 53 of 66 (353268)
09-30-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by iceage
09-29-2006 7:03 PM


Grand Canyon
The Great Unconformity at the bottom of the grand canyon present even a more difficult case. The bottom layer consists of several different types of rock including intrusions. The upper layers are several thousands of feet thick and tens of miles long.
I've posted a cross section of that region at EvC more than once. From a YEC perspective I have hypothesized that the layers were all in place but not completely hardened when there was an intrusion of magma from below that displaced the lowest strata, upending them.
The volcanic force uplifted the whole column at the north of the Grand Canyon and was the cause of the crack in the layers that eventually became the canyon itself, after which water -- water left over from the flood, held in temporary lakes here and there -- eroded it over time, but relatively rapidly by evo standards, to its present breadth. There are also cracks to the north in the Grand Staircase that formed smaller canyons.
The layers did not crack or buckle over the mound to the north of the GC which was created by the uplifting force of the magma intrusion below. On the diagram they maintain their parallel form over the curve without breaking up. {Edit: This fact shows that they were all in place when the volcanic action underneath occurred. They could not have formed later as there is no way gravity would allow layers to form in parallel slowly over a mound.
My theory is that the weight of the upper layers relative to the force from below was enough to keep them from distorting in the same way as the lower layers, that is, they maintained their parallel form, while the force played out in the tilting and sliding of the lower layers beneath the weight of the upper column, at the division between two different sediments. The lower tilted and slid, but the upper were merely lifted. Quite an earthquake I would imagine. Similar processes could explain other unconformities. Sorry I can't access links until my computer problem is fixed, sometime next week.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 7:03 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:25 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 54 of 66 (353271)
09-30-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by iceage
09-29-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Lava Layers
Are we to believe that all three sediment layers are laid down during the flood year with two intervening subarial basalt flows?
I can't access links for now, but my response is Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iceage, posted 09-29-2006 7:43 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:39 AM Faith has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 55 of 66 (353372)
10-01-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
09-30-2006 12:08 PM


Re: Grand Canyon
This is simultaneously imaginative and completely and abundantly preposterous.
First in many unconformities the upper layer contains pieces or breccias of the lower layer. This is splendidly illustrated in this image
No such page | The University of Edinburgh
Broken chunks of the lower layer are intermixed in a matrix of the upper layer for the first 3 to 4 feet. Within this transition zone there are clearly sedimentary layers and even cross-bedding. Protuding parts of the lower layer were being eroded by the enviroment while the sand of the upper layer was being deposited.
I will concur on the rather large earthquakes that would occur in your scenario. It is wonder that the fragile hoodoos of Bryce Canyon survived. Bryce canyon is just over 100 miles away.
http://www.planetware.com/...-national-park-utah-utbry14.jpg
Now that I think about, how can one explain the delicate features of Bryce in a violently flooded landscape? Ahh a topic for a later time, perhaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 12:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 10-01-2006 1:48 AM iceage has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 56 of 66 (353375)
10-01-2006 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
09-30-2006 12:21 PM


Re: Lava Layers
Why not!!
I dunno two dry land placement of basaltic layers in a flood year might present some issues I would think.
The balast layers in the below image are placed in air not a wet environment or underwater.
http://www.sammcgees.com/lava_layers.jpg
How do we know this basalt was place on dry land? Well when lava flows under water it forms characteristic pillows or shatters into palagonite.
http://geology.about.com/...andforms/ig/pillowlava/index.htm
San Diego State University Department of Geological Sciences – Page not found

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 09-30-2006 12:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 10-01-2006 1:33 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 59 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 2:12 AM iceage has not replied

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


Message 57 of 66 (353384)
10-01-2006 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iceage
10-01-2006 12:39 AM


Re: Lava Layers
How do we know this basalt was place on dry land? Well when lava flows under water it forms characteristic pillows or shatters into palagonite.
I CANNOT READ THE LINKS as I've said many times. Sorry but I can't until my computer is fixed.
If it's in layers it was formed by the flood, it was carried on water, it was deposited between other sediments. It's not your ordinary everyday scenario. The rapid sedimentation and the weight of the layers above would probably have compressed any pillows flat.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:39 AM iceage has not replied

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


Message 58 of 66 (353387)
10-01-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by iceage
10-01-2006 12:25 AM


Re: Grand Canyon
I will concur on the rather large earthquakes that would occur in your scenario. It is wonder that the fragile hoodoos of Bryce Canyon survived. Bryce canyon is just over 100 miles away.
Now THAT is silly. The hoodoos have been slowly eroded into their fragile condition over some 4500 winters since the Flood. Every year they lose a little more of their substance as they freeze and thaw. It is a concern of those who oversee the park. {edit: There have even been suggestions to artificially support some of the more famous formations, though sanity prevailed and they decided nature is nature and if they disintegrate that's that.}
They didn't exist when the Grand Canyon was formed. That area was no doubt just a stack of layers like most of the earth at the time, perhaps just starting to crack in the areas that became the spaces between the pillars {edit: cracked as a result of the earthquake perhaps}. The cracks would widen and deepen as runoff continued, being sculpted away by receding flood waters, probably in many rivulets, rather than the cataract that hit the GC, and the pillars must have been quite thick and sturdy at first. Completely sculpting them to their present fragile condition couldn't be done by running water, and would certainly have taken those 4500 years of slow weather erosion.
I see NO problem with the intermixing of layers in unconformities. Why exactly is that a problem?
If that's a problem for the flood scenario it strikes me as a far more difficult problem for the OE slow deposition scenario.
I CANNOT READ YOUR LINKS.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:25 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 2:24 AM Faith has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 59 of 66 (353392)
10-01-2006 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by iceage
10-01-2006 12:39 AM


Re: Lava Layers
If you can post here you can visit these links. Perhaps you do not want to visit these "links".
The basaltic layers with verical column formations shown are not flattened pillows and to suggest such is ludicrous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 12:39 AM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 10-01-2006 2:20 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 63 by AdminPD, posted 10-01-2006 11:30 AM iceage has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 66 (353393)
10-01-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by iceage
10-01-2006 2:12 AM


Re: Lava Layers
If you can post here you can visit these links. Perhaps you do not want to visit these "links".
yes. if your browser is having problems opening links (how are you reading the forum, exactly?), you should at the very least be able to copy and paste the link addresses into a new browser window, and go there manually.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iceage, posted 10-01-2006 2:12 AM iceage 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