|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,775 Year: 1,097/6,935 Month: 378/719 Week: 20/146 Day: 1/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why the Flood Never Happened | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith? Ah, to be a new member again... No, I lost my curiosity through experience. Plainly, she's just not an honest person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Simply because the Old Earthers don't believe the planet was totally inactive for a few billion years. They believe that the activity we see ongoing in the world today has always been going on, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, the tectonic disturbances, the destructive weather patterns. I think, on the other hand, that if any of that happened during the formation of the stack of the Grand Canyon you would not have that nice neat stack a mile deep that is visible in various places in the canyon. The strata that the GC cuts through wasn't where it is now when it was forming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As I've argued many times, anything about the unwitnessed past is nothing but speculation. That argument is wrong. I explained earlier, but the thread got closed, so here it is:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I'm glad they can find coal though I don't see what that has to do with unknowables about the past. Scientists can use what you are referring to as "speculations" and make accurate predictions of where coal can be found. If their "speculations" were really just speculations, then they wouldn't be so right all the time and their track record would be bad. But its not, because they actually do know what they are talking about. People really can figure out stuff about the past without any witnesses.
I don't think they had a lot of problem finding coal before Old Earth theory came along did they? Not just stumbling across some coal, but learning about what kind of environment causes coal to form, and then using that knowledge to locate where coal will be found if a particular location is drilled. If you are correct that its just "speculations" about the past, then there'd be no reason why the scientists can accurately predict where it will be found. And their accurate predictions are based on the fact that it takes 100's of millions of years for coal to form:
Scientists have studied how those processes work today and they apply that knowledge to what we know about the past. They can use those "specualtion" to make accurate predictions. That means that they are correct.
But if the Grand Canyon was clearly not laid down layer by layer over millions of years that wrecks Old Earth theory and whatever science gets right is something else. The strata that the Grand Canyon cuts through was laid down layer by layer over millions of years. That's not just a wild speculation on the scientists' part, that's a conclusion that was reached through the study of the evidence from the layers, themselves, and the processes that form strata like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
"what kind of environment causes coal" doesn't require any idea about millions of years. Sure it does. Didn't you look at the picture? Ancients forests from 100's of millions of years ago were converted into coal over those millions of years.
I've SHOWN that the layers wree not laid down over millions of yeaers. You just have to THINK about the evidence given. I've thought about what you've posted, and nothing you've posted shows that the layers were not laid down over millions of years. Its not that we are blind or biased, its that you're wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
No you haven't thought about anhy of it because I've given good arguments on good evidence. Yes, I have thought about it. Both your arguments and your evidence are bad.
Those forests are not millions of hyars old. And you can actrually SEE coal seams forming between the layers in road cuts in some places in the country. Coal is caused by the compression of vegetation which would have happened at certain layers in the Flood. One thing that does seem to be true is that the same layers occur at the same levels so you only need to know the level, not the age. But the scientists who can accurately predict where coal will be found use the knowledge that they formed from forests from 100's of millions of years ago to make those predictions. If they were so incredibly wrong, like they'd have to be for you to be right, then there's no way that their predictions could be so accurate. But they can make accurate predictions, so therefore they are correct and you are wrong. Nobody who is trying to find coal uses The Flood in any of their methods for predicting where it will be found. The people who can accurately predict where coal can be found operate under the impression that it forms over millions of years. Given that the millions of years approach actually works to yield accurate predictions, and that nobody considers The Flood, its obvious that the scientists are correct and that The Flood has nothing to do with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all. False. In Message 224, I reproduced, addressed, and refuted your argument that conclusions about the unwitnessed past are just speculation. You replied to my refutation by simply asserting that coal formation doesn't require millions of years. I continued my line of reasoning and further explained how we know they do. You've now just replied to an insignificant section of my message rather than addressing my argument. You've failed to address what has been said, so according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all. But you're wrong on that account as well, so go ahead and actually address my argument with something other than bare assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You are interpreting according to the OE theory. Yes, of course. That's the theory that works. OE Theory is what lead those scientists to be able to predict where coal can be found deep under the ground. And they're getting it right. Their findings, however, contradict a young Earth. If you want to find coal; you don't ask the YEC's, you ask ask the scientists. I suppose their OE Theory could all just be the butt of a joke, but it is yielding results. And that makes them look right.
If you weren't {interpreting according to the OE theory} you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before the GC uplift occurred the GC was formed all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed the Hurricane fault occurred the magma dike in the GS area occurred all the formations of the southwest were sculpted such as the hoodoos the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened, I acknowledge that if I were assuming that the OE Theory was wrong, and that the Earth was in fact young, that those strata could not have been laid down individually and undisturbed. Just loosing the assumption of the OE Theory, and placing no bets on the age, I would conclude that those strata were laid down individually, and were disturbed, over the course of a very long period of time.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form That doesn't show that. You mentioned us not really considering your alternative, but you seem to be doing exactly that. I don't think you fully understand the concept of the OE Theory. You gotta really stretch the time out. The layers are individual, but some of them are just gradually collecting like dust so deep that it would take what seems like forever. And over that time, the plate that the sediment is sitting on is grudging along the surface it is sitting on, but going even even slower. The kinds of disturbances that would happen in that process, would be unimaginable. And I think you're mistaking what we mean by "surface", the surface of the strata can be covered by water. Way back when it was way over on the other side of the planet, just gradually grudging along, there were all kinds of environments that it went through experiencing. Over long periods of time, remember. And they gradually left behind "individual" layers that represent great changes in the experiences that the surface of the Earth was going through. Changes that would take forever.
[Moose repellent]That's what I meant in Message 44, Moose.[/moose repellent]. So anyways, assuming that the OE theory is wrong and then finding a way to interpret evidence that simply corresponds with that assumption (like saying that the layers couldn't have been laid down individually and undisturbed (which is an assumption of what you're trying to explain)), is not a way to show that the OE theory is wrong. Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC? In short: Plate tectonics. As the surfaces are gathering over the underlying surfaces that are on plates, they are slowing sliding along the surfaces that those plates are sitting on. As things gradually move about and collide and separate and all kinds of stuff, various different anomalies such as that uplift occur.
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup? A section of a very ancient surface of the Earth that was eroded away and gradually deposited upon while it was slowly carried across the underlying surfaces of the Earth through a process that keeps repeating itself today, as it has for extremely long periods of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hey, remember my reply to you from 7 weeks ago:
Message 34:quote: Was I right, or what?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025