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:   Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 310 (191551)
03-14-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by PaulK
03-14-2005 7:12 PM


Re: Off topic, proof, belief etc.
So lets sum this up:
1) You demand respect for your beleifs - to the point where nobbody is allowed to post a dissenting opinion. But you won't accept that anyone elses beleifs are even relevant.
Your beliefs are your assumptions from which you debate. Mine are the same for me. We are not discussing assumptions on this thread and I'm not interested in discussing them. They don't belong on this thread. Again, I said what I said only because somebody raised the question off topic and I should not have answered. Again, I am not interested in debating the Bible. I'm just not. Maybe some other time, but for this thread it's not the topic. This is not saying "nobody is allowed to post a dissenting opinion" for heaven's sake. There is a time and a place for everything, and presumably if I don't feel like arguing the Bible I am free to not feel like arguing the Bible, or has that freedom been abrogated somehow?
2) You refused to discuss legitmate material the groudns it was "off-topic" but when corrected you insist on dragging in material that really is off-topic.
THE ADMINS DECLARED IT OFF TOPIC. I ANSWERED WHEN I SHOULDN'T HAVE. NOW I'M IN THIS ENDLESS LOOP WHERE I HAVE TO ANSWER ALL THESE IRRELEVANT CHALLENGES AS NOBODY CAN LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE AROUND HERE.
3) You appeal to the Bible - or rather you preferred interpretaion of it as proof of the Flood - and then deny appealing to the Bble.
OK, let me try to correct. I am not arguing the Flood. The fact that a Flood is given in the Bible IS evidence for a FLood, yes, but I know better than to argue from that here. It IS evidence, certainly, but not evidence that carries much weight in this forum, so I wouldn't emphasize it, but it IS evidence. OBVIOUSLY. So is Gilgamesh. But again, I don't care to argue for the Flood. Sometimes because of what others say I will answer but this thread is for me not about arguing for the Flood.
And this stuff about "interpretation" DOES belong on another thread for sure but there is no doubt whatever that the Bible SAYS THERE WAS A WORLDWIDE FLOOD and describes it in a fair amount of detail. The only "interpreting" anyone ever does to that is interpret it AWAY. But on the face of it it says what it says, no "interpretation" required.
If you REALLY think that you can offer this "tremendous" proof that the Bible is the "Word of God" then feel free to start a thread on it. But I strongly suggest that you actually educate yourself on the subject first.
I spent 3/4 of my life listening to Bible debunkers and believing them. I know better now. I have no interest whatever in proving the Bible to you as I have said here time and time again. God does not subject Himself to proof. He said it is a matter of believing His word from the evidence He gave in His word, no mean production. There is nothing one can add to that. You don't believe it, you don't believe it. I believe it, I work from it, I consider that what it says IS evidence -- as any written document must be -- but beyond that I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE BIBLE OR EVEN FOR THE FLOOD.
Good grief, why is this so difficult to understand?????
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-14-2005 08:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2005 7:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2005 8:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 289 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2005 3:29 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 272 of 310 (191553)
03-14-2005 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
03-14-2005 6:40 PM


Re: Exactly!
I NEVER said that it cuts across layers. I said that the layers are diagonal. Then when you look at a cross section of them it looks like they are nice and flat.
When you picture it in 3d, like the cake example, you know that the layer is not flat but tilted. It is flat with respect to the layers above and below it but not flat like pretty pictures in geo 101 textbooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 6:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 8:41 PM Jazzns has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 273 of 310 (191555)
03-14-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
03-14-2005 8:08 PM


Biblical interpretation
The only "interpreting" anyone ever does to that is interpret it AWAY.
Oh no! Those who are aware that a flood didn't happen don't interpret that Bible at all. They simple take the simple statment of those like you who say a flood happened and then show it didn't.
There is plenty of interpretations of the Bible by those who are trying to say a flood did happen though. Walt Brown and his hydroplate "theory" being one of the wilder "interpretations".
There seem to be rather a lot of different interpretations by those that believe a flood happened.
I think the only thing that those who understand geology get from the literalists is that a global, short term flood happened only a few thousand years ago. Do you object to that "interpretation"?
That is the "interpretation" that has been shown to be wrong. It is the one that was initially discarded by Christian believers in the Bible about 200 years ago. It is still rejected by the majority of Christians and the vast majority of scientists who are Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 8:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 8:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 274 of 310 (191558)
03-14-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Loudmouth
03-14-2005 3:50 PM


This ought to show the Geo Column madness
Here, use the Grand Canyon diagram
Take any one of those layers. The Mississippian. Nothing but redwall limestone was laid down for 50 million years according to that chart.
The Devonian, whose age is hard to tell from the chart, starting at 400 million years and going apparently to 600 million although it is drawn as if it represents a much shorter period of time, roughly ten million years perhaps, not a time frame to be sneezed at, laid down ONLY Undivided Dolomite, before it was abruptly replaced by the Mississippian redwall limestone. Curious.
Before that we have a period of Mauv Limestone that was apparently exclusively deposited for oh what, another 20 million years, before it was abruptly replaced by the Undivided Dolomite of the Devonian.
Below that we have Bright Angel Shale, which was the only thing deposited for the previous 20 million years.
Is something of the irrationality of this Geological Column idea getting through yet???????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Loudmouth, posted 03-14-2005 3:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

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


Message 275 of 310 (191559)
03-14-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Jazzns
03-14-2005 8:11 PM


Re: Exactly!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Exactly!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I NEVER said that it cuts across layers. I said that the layers are diagonal. Then when you look at a cross section of them it looks like they are nice and flat.
When you picture it in 3d, like the cake example, you know that the layer is not flat but tilted. It is flat with respect to the layers above and below it but not flat like pretty pictures in geo 101 textbooks.
I still have no idea why you are talking about this. The cake example flopped. You DID say a SINGLE layer, not layers. I know some layers are diagonal. So what? They were obviously made diagonal after having been deposited horizontally. Gravity you know. So what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Jazzns, posted 03-14-2005 8:11 PM Jazzns has not replied

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


Message 276 of 310 (191560)
03-14-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by NosyNed
03-14-2005 8:17 PM


Re: Biblical interpretation
The only "interpreting" anyone ever does to that is interpret it AWAY.
Oh no! Those who are aware that a flood didn't happen don't interpret that Bible at all. They simple take the simple statment of those like you who say a flood happened and then show it didn't.
Sorry, the statement was about how one interprets the Bible. The Bible is clear. It says there was a worldwide Flood. Any other interpretation is interpreting it away. Using science to disprove the Bible is another subject.
There is plenty of interpretations of the Bible by those who are trying to say a flood did happen though. Walt Brown and his hydroplate "theory" being one of the wilder "interpretations".
There seem to be rather a lot of different interpretations by those that believe a flood happened.
Are you talking about interpretations or are you talking about efforts to cram supposed scientific data into what the Bible actually says. "Interpretation" suggests that there is more than one way to read what the Bible actually says. If it says there was a worldwide flood the only way you can get a local flood out of it for instance, is by "interpreting away" what it actually says.
I think the only thing that those who understand geology get from the literalists is that a global, short term flood happened only a few thousand years ago. Do you object to that "interpretation"?
It's what the Bible says in so many words. The time frame is somewhat open to various readings, but there's not much leeway there either if you follow it as written. Where's the "interpretation?"
That is the "interpretation" that has been shown to be wrong. It is the one that was initially discarded by Christian believers in the Bible about 200 years ago. It is still rejected by the majority of Christians and the vast majority of scientists who are Christian.
I can't help that. Christians can be wrong. They bend to "science" and world opinion because their faith is weak. If you trust God you accept that science seems to contradict Him and wait until it is eventually proven that science was wrong. That's all. Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by NosyNed, posted 03-14-2005 8:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Percy, posted 03-14-2005 11:10 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 277 of 310 (191565)
03-14-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Loudmouth
03-14-2005 3:50 PM


An inch every 9000 years?
Sorry, I read the Devonian from the wrong end but it doesn't matter.
On the great great ages theory, the idea that the oldest rocks in the canyon are over 600 million years old, and considering that the canyon is over a mile deep, let's say 6000 feet for the sake of round numbers, that's an average of 100,000 years PER FOOT on the slow ages theory, to build up the miles and miles of surrounding layered land through which the canyon cut. All neat and flat and undisturbed for miles in all directions. I'm sure you would suppose variations in the rate of sedimentation and all that but there's no getting around this ballpark number.
That's about an inch every 8 to 9000 years. Such neat homogeneous layers. Even if deposited in water how do you get an inch of limestone or shale every 8000 years? And you think if it was deposited in dry conditions that erosion wouldn't knock down an inch of sediment in that time, and probably eat into the layer below as well, or do you think it was in its current hardened form right away?
THIS DOG WON'T HUNT.
But OK, tell me how it hunts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Loudmouth, posted 03-14-2005 3:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2005 10:27 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 278 of 310 (191566)
03-14-2005 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
03-14-2005 6:52 PM


The ones below were once the ones on top which you admit are moved around by weathering!!!!!!
Yes, but only until they're buried. Remember when I asked you what planet you live on? This is why. Here on planet Earth, it's entirely possible - and common, and obviously necessary for life - for sediments to stay in one place ong enough to be buried by other sediments.
Apparently on your planet there's no possibility that any particle of soil might remain in one place for any length of time, so I'm somewhat curious how you're able to grow anything where you live.
EVERY layer of deposit in this notion that it took millions of years to build them up is EXPOSED TO WEATHERING before another is laid down on it.
Right, for all of what, a couple hours or so until its sufficiently buried? How much weathering do you think can occur in a few hours?
This is NOT happening lickety split. It is happening at an unbelievably excruciatingly slow pace
Incorrect. The layers are old. The layers solidify relatively quickly. Both of those things are true. You've only been told that over and over again; why doesn't it sink in? There's a difference between the age of the layer and how long it takes to turn from silt to rock.
And THEN you have this other ridiculous idea that SOMEHOW at SOME point after aeons of slow deposition this very slow even process of deposition SUDDENLY switches to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 6:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 11:24 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 279 of 310 (191567)
03-14-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-14-2005 9:17 PM


All neat and flat and undisturbed for miles in all directions.
None of them are neat and flat and undisturbed. They're almost all disturbed by millions of years of erosion and plate activity. How come we have to keep repeating that to you?
And you think if it was deposited in dry conditions that erosion wouldn't knock down an inch of sediment in that time, and probably eat into the layer below as well, or do you think it was in its current hardened form right away?
Explain to me what erosion you believe is happening in this place:
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2005 10:28 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 03-14-2005 10:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 9:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 280 of 310 (191568)
03-14-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
03-14-2005 7:40 PM


I'm not asking science to rely on anything but in fact all the thinking that is done in science IS based on faith in evolutionism, in old earth etc etc.
All the thinking done in science is based on the evidence. Basing it on anything else is not scientific.
You'd say "Evolution is true, no matter what."
No, we wouldn't. We're not like you. If evidence exists that contradicts evolution, and if a better model is developed that explains not only all the evidence that evolution explains, but also the evidence that contradicts evolution, then we'll know that evolution is probably false.
We don't start by assuming evolution. We developed evolution as a conclusion from the evidence, and if that evidence changes, then so will our conclusions. That's how science operates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 7:40 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 281 of 310 (191569)
03-14-2005 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
03-14-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Off topic, proof, belief etc.
Faith writes:
You cannot reasonably say that "There is no doubt that a worldwide Flood occurred" - since that claims that there is clear proof of the Flood. And that is false. You would be closer to the truth to state that "there is no doubt that a worldwide Flood did NOT occur"
This is in the off-topic category we've been warned about, so if you want to discuss it start a new thread and possibly I'll find it and possibly I'll care to answer.
The flood is a very common topic in this forum, which is the [forum=-7] forum. While the flood could easily be off-topic in some threads in this forum, that doesn't appear to be the case here, since your view is that the strata under discussion were deposited by the flood.
What I said in Message 241 was, "Members on both sides of the debate should leave religious and Biblical issues out of the science forums." Only if you have no scientific evidence or arguments in favor of the flood would you have to avoid arguing for it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 5:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 11:47 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 282 of 310 (191573)
03-14-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
03-14-2005 8:49 PM


Re: Biblical interpretation
From Message 259:
Faith writes:
No, I wanted to be more definite, because the word of God IS the word of God, and that is my assumption just as evolutionism is yours. The facts supporting the Bible as the word of God are tremendous.
...
So I'll repeat: There IS no doubt that the Flood happened as God said so.
...
I believe if God says something that's better than anything science can say, and certainly if science contradicts God, so much the worse for science.
If you accept the flood because of God and Bible, that's fine and everyone understands that. But this is a science forum, and if you want to argue for the flood from a scientific perspective then you have to focus on evidence and reasoned argumentation.
From Message 271:
Faith writes:
The fact that a Flood is given in the Bible IS evidence for a FLood, yes, but I know better than to argue from that here. It IS evidence, certainly, but not evidence that carries much weight in this forum, so I wouldn't emphasize it, but it IS evidence.
EvC Forum recognizes a fairly traditional definition of science in which evidence is considered to be observations and/or experiments that can be replicated or at least cross-checked. As such, revelation isn't commonly considered scientific evidence. EvC Forum also recognizes that there may be other opinions about the nature of science and evidence, and [forum=-11] is the proper place for such discussions.
...but beyond that I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE BIBLE OR EVEN FOR THE FLOOD.
Good grief, why is this so difficult to understand?????
I'm glad you're not arguing for the Bible in a science thread. About the flood, if you really feel you're not arguing for the flood then at least please understand that this claim probably makes sense to very few people since all your objections to the scientific arguments are flood-based.
To everyone: please, no more mention of God and Bible in this thread. Thanks! Sorry I'm posting this as Percy instead of Admin, but in my previous post I didn't want to be heavy-handed, so I posted as Percy. I'd like to continue to keep this low key, and so I'm continuing as Percy, but if I have to further clarify I'll do it as Admin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 03-14-2005 8:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 03-15-2005 12:08 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 283 of 310 (191578)
03-14-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
03-14-2005 10:26 PM


The ones below were once the ones on top which you admit are moved around by weathering!!!!!!
Yes, but only until they're buried. Remember when I asked you what planet you live on? This is why. Here on planet Earth, it's entirely possible - and common, and obviously necessary for life - for sediments to stay in one place ong enough to be buried by other sediments.
According to the rough time scheme I computed from the notion of 600 million years of deposition of layers of different kinds of sediments to the depth of over a mile in the Grand Canyon, we're talking an inch in 8000 years, an inch of neatly horizontal stuff before another inch is laid on top. Or if you are talking about the whole stratum being laid down at once you have to factor in a huge period of absolute inaction for millions of years before the next stratum starts anyway, a new stratum SHARPLY different from the previous. There is NO way this computes. The time frame of the Geo Column does not compute, period. I don't know what planet YOU are living on but it isn't the one that built up the strata of the Grand Canyon.
Apparently on your planet there's no possibility that any particle of soil might remain in one place for any length of time, so I'm somewhat curious how you're able to grow anything where you live.
According to what I just computed we're talking about an average time span of an inch being laid down over 8000 years in the building up of the Geo Column according to its own time frame suppositions -- or a foot in 100,000 years. You expect an inch of neatly horizontal topsoil to stay put for 8000 years? Or a few feet for a few hundred thousand years. Neatly horizontal?
Actual deposition builds up a lot faster than that anyway. How deep do you suppose it would have to build up before compression would start in, before it eroded enough to destroy the pristine horizontality of it and destroy the neat layers of the Geo Column? And that's just topsoil.
But the Geo Column has layers of just one kind of sediment to a depth of feet, right? How on earth did that build up over slow aeons? And how then did it SUDDENLY change to a different kind of substance? A different limestone, say, clearly demarcated from the 20 million years worth of the previous limestone.
So the topsoil and compost and yearly accumulation of rotting leaves in my alfalfa field stays more or less put while I grow my crops on it. That's not 8000 years, during most of which there was nobody to cultivate the land anyway. Even when cultivated it can be rearranged by the elements you know, subject to floods and droughts with dust storms etc.
Stay focused on the ENORMOUS SPANS OF TIME YOUR THEORY SUPPOSES. You can't extrapolate much from my backyard garden over 50 years when the time frame for building ONE INCH of the Geo Column is 8000 years!
EVERY layer of deposit in this notion that it took millions of years to build them up is EXPOSED TO WEATHERING before another is laid down on it.
Right, for all of what, a couple hours or so until its sufficiently buried? How much weathering do you think can occur in a few hours?
I can only ask what planet are YOU living on? Think 1 inch = 8000 years and tell me how you arrive at neat strata like the Grand Canyon from that, under water or not.
This is NOT happening lickety split. It is happening at an unbelievably excruciatingly slow pace
Incorrect. The layers are old. The layers solidify relatively quickly. Both of those things are true. You've only been told that over and over again; why doesn't it sink in? There's a difference between the age of the layer and how long it takes to turn from silt to rock.
Uh huh. So the Mississippian is how old? 200 and something million years if I recall correctly. And the stratum above it is 50 million years younger. Uh huh. So what do we imagine then? The Mississippian was laid down in one fell swoop of red limestone, and somehow it got compressed to hardness without any compression from above, very neat and horizontal and unaffected by any of the elements for TWENTY MILLION YEARS, before the next layer of whatever it was plunked itself down on top of it in another fell swoop etc etc etc.
THINK ABOUT THE TIME FRAME YOUR THEORY POSTULATES. It doesn't matter if each layer was laid down at once or slowly. Either way you have to account for millions of years for it according to your theory, as each layer has millions of years officially assigned to it and it can't happen faster than the theory has allotted to it before the next totally different layer of stuff deposits on top of it, slowly or rapidly according to your whim of the moment.
And THEN you have this other ridiculous idea that SOMEHOW at SOME point after aeons of slow deposition this very slow even process of deposition SUDDENLY switches to SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Huh?
Well we have the Mississippian which is one kind of limestone called red-something -- don't know why the whole word won't come to me -- that stuck around for 20 million years or so, whether being built up slowly during that time or just arriving all at once and waiting around for the next layer to plop down on top of it, and then that next layer is a completely different kind of limestone and there is a nice clear demarcation between the two kinds. They don't mix. There's this one kind and then there is this other kind. According to the chart. One kind, another completely different kind. Something completely different. After waiting around for 20 million years or so -- OR building up slowly for those 20 million years or so, as you wish. And each of these layers was formed on this time scheme. Three different kinds of limestone, then a layer of shale, each assigned millions of years for its deposition and compression etc etc etc.
Think.
This is not computing.
You're under its spell.
It makes no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2005 10:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2005 2:49 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 284 of 310 (191583)
03-14-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by crashfrog
03-14-2005 10:27 PM


All neat and flat and undisturbed for miles in all directions.
None of them are neat and flat and undisturbed. They're almost all disturbed by millions of years of erosion and plate activity. How come we have to keep repeating that to you?
There is no sign of this in any of the pictures. You repeat it but it is not borne out by the obvious observable facts. The strata are amazingly neat and parallel. There is no visible evidence of erosion. I don't even know what you are talking about. I look at the various pictures of strata and they look neat and parallel. Within reason, with no evidence of normal erosion. Yeah you say it you haven't shown it. I think you are probably talking about something else, not the neat layers I'm seeing.
And you think if it was deposited in dry conditions that erosion wouldn't knock down an inch of sediment in that time, and probably eat into the layer below as well, or do you think it was in its current hardened form right away?
Explain to me what erosion you believe is happening in this place:
Give it 8000 years and see if it still looks like that. Can you prove that it's building up at the rate of a foot in 100,000 years, so that it will be a few feet of all one thing eventually in a few million years, and then do you suppose something completely different will decide to deposit itself down on top of it and accumulate for another 20 million years?
But what would one area like that prove any way? There are many local difference in the Geo Column where perfect layers aren't demonstrated. However, my computer doesn't give me a very good picture. I can't even tell what that is a picture of. Antarctica? Is that snow or ice? Or is it the Great Salt Lake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2005 10:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 285 of 310 (191587)
03-14-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Percy
03-14-2005 10:41 PM


Re: Off topic, proof, belief etc.
Faith writes:
You cannot reasonably say that "There is no doubt that a worldwide Flood occurred" - since that claims that there is clear proof of the Flood. And that is false. You would be closer to the truth to state that "there is no doubt that a worldwide Flood did NOT occur"
No, my lack of doubt is not based on scientific proof and I've said that. I've said it is based on something much more reliable. But again, I am not using any of this as evidence in this discussion.
This is in the off-topic category we've been warned about, so if you want to discuss it start a new thread and possibly I'll find it and possibly I'll care to answer.
The flood is a very common topic in this forum, which is the Geology and the Great Flood forum. While the flood could easily be off-topic in some threads in this forum, that doesn't appear to be the case here, since your view is that the strata under discussion were deposited by the flood.
The topic is Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata" and I've been trying to stick to it.
What I said in Message 241 was, "Members on both sides of the debate should leave religious and Biblical issues out of the science forums." Only if you have no scientific evidence or arguments in favor of the flood would you have to avoid arguing for it.
I've said I don't feel I can handle all the objections to the idea of the Flood, that's why I don't want to argue it. But I think the Geo Column is obviously a false idea on the face of it and I've been trying to stick to that. It's a limited topic compared to the Flood. I believe what I've been saying in the last few posts about the time frame with respect to the strata of the Grand Canyon demonstrates the irrationality of that model. Speculations given by Crashfrog in answer don't answer it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 03-14-2005 10:41 PM Percy 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