Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology

[Pete Harcoff]

4th April 2003 at 11:52 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #19

1. What stratum or sequence of strata in the geologic record represent a period of global flooding and the resulting sedimentary deposition?

As this article demonstrates, there is no consensus among creationists on this issue.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

5th April 2003 at 12:10 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #21

As this article demonstrates, there is no consensus among creationists on this issue.

Just a follow up note:

You know what is truly remarkable about this? If there was such a monumental event like a worldwide flood a mere 4000 years ago, you'd think the answer to the problem of stratigraphy would be glaringly obvious. But the way things are, you'd almost think there wasn't a global flood...

(I meant to add this to the original post, but quoted by mistake. Oh well)

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

5th April 2003 at 12:03 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #20

1. probably most, if not all

If your answer is "most," then I'm going to need a more specific answer than that so it's clear exactly which sequence of strata that will be discussed.

If your answer is "all," then you've got an immense amount of explanation to do.

2. I think the flood waters were present for about one year.
( i will need to recheck the complete accuracy of this)

So the time interval is one year.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

5th April 2003 at 12:10 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #21



As this article demonstrates, there is no consensus among creationists on this issue.

Yes, I know. I'm just trying to see if there are creationists who are able to think for themselves while being able to address the evidence that falsifies their model.

And yes, such an event that is only a few thousand years old should indeed be glaringly obvious--especially if it is a global event--in the geologic record.

It would be a lot easier to consider the validity the worldwide flood hypothesis if (1) there was enough water on Earth for it to occur and (2) the deposition as a result is a discrete set of sediments that have nothing to do with more complex features (unconformities, paleosols, faulting, etc.) and that it appears globally and does not constitute the majority of the record.

One would think that if flood "geologists" understood basic geologic concepts they would be arguing that a relatively small sequence of marine strata stratigraphically "high" in the record seen globally are evidence of the flood rather than arguing that kilometers of sediment are a result of it when they clearly cannot be. Then again, I guess there wouldn't be another mechanism for them to call upon to explain those kilometers of sediments.

 

[Plumbdumb]

4th April 2003 at 10:48 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #18




Then you are incorrect about the principles of science. Science is a man-made construct--a naturalistic methodology created by humans to interpret the world around them.

There are questions in the opening thread.

Why do people keep detracting from the topic? What is so hard about answering the questions directly?

MB, somrtimes threads take on a life and direction of their own as this one seems to be doing/have done. As for science being a man made construct.......you have me lost as a goose. Man invented the Law of Gravity to have a totally human reason why things fall down instead of up? If that's what you mean, I think we live in different universes. Everything we (the people in my firm) do everyday to keep a certain item flowing downhill, safe potable water coming out of your faucets, a comfy environment in you home and workplace (heat and air con) are all based on science - not just some man-made effort at intrepreting his world. Try running your air conditioner without freon or your heater without gas or electricity. Science is why the freon is there, and why gas or electricity provides the warmth from your heater.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

5th April 2003 at 04:50 PM Plumbdumb said this in Post #25



MB, somrtimes threads take on a life and direction of their own as this one seems to be doing/have done. As for science being a man made construct.......you have me lost as a goose. Man invented the Law of Gravity to have a totally human reason why things fall down instead of up? If that's what you mean, I think we live in different universes. Everything we (the people in my firm) do everyday to keep a certain item flowing downhill, safe potable water coming out of your faucets, a comfy environment in you home and workplace (heat and air con) are all based on science - not just some man-made effort at intrepreting his world. Try running your air conditioner without freon or your heater without gas or electricity. Science is why the freon is there, and why gas or electricity provides the warmth from your heater.

Not at all. You are confusing "science" with "the natural world".

Science is a human construct. It is a method to examine the natural world. It is a naturalistic methodology to explore that world created by humans. It is not the natural world itself. That method can be used to find the best way to make use of our natural resources, but science is not the same as those natural resources.

 

[Plumbdumb]

You' ve lost me. What can I say but **Hence the Name**. Of course my inability to think straight could have something to do with the 32 people who have been here since 4:00 CST celebrating my youngest Grandson's 1st B-day. They all just left, and I R Whupped.

 

[troodon]

He's saying that science isn't the world around us. Science is the method you use to figure out the way the world works. Science is man made but the world it describes is not.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Still no answer?

Grand Staircase 


Grand Canyon


OK, so I guess  I'll make this easier to establish the framework of discussion by limiting it to a discussion of the Grand Canyon and other strata in the Colorado Plateau region. Which strata from the Grand Canyon and/or the Grand Staircase are flood deposits? An upper and lower bound of the sequence would be appreciated so we all know which strata can be discussed--just take a look at the cross sections linked above (I thought I knew how to post pictures, but I guess not). Keep in mind that the Zoroaster Granite and Vishnu Schist are not sedimentary.

 

[Plumbdumb]

Yesterday at 08:36 PM troodon said this in Post #28

He's saying that science isn't the world around us. Science is the method you use to figure out the way the world works. Science is man made but the world it describes is not.

OK, I'll not post anymore about this here, since I see it's not topic-specific. I'd like to continue the discussion in another thread though.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The thread is already about to start its fourth page, and yet the discussion has not even taken off the ground.

If the geologic evidence so easily fits the Young Earth model using a global flooding mechanism as YECists insist, then why is it so hard to get an answer to these questions, questions raised in the threads linked in the opening post, and so hard to actually get anyone who holds that belief to back up their claims?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

This thread is lonely...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is getting a little lonesome isn't it. You'd think if were so easy to fit these observations neatly into a young earth framework as we keep hearing, we would see some efforts to answer some of the questions you have raised.  Apparently not. Could it be because none of these things can actually be fit nicely into a young earth framework. Apparently so.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Doubting Thomas]

*Bump*

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The silence is very telling. Can we all now agree that claims of a global flood as a mechanism to create Earth's sedimentary features and the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth are completely unsubstantiated and false? Let's hope so. As harsh as it might sound, I'm simply inclined to say, "put up, or shut up."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:33 PM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #35

The silence is very telling. Can we all now agree that claims of a global flood as a mechanism to create Earth's sedimentary features and the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth are completely unsubstantiated and false? Let's hope so. As harsh as it might sound, I'm simply inclined to say, "put up, or shut up."

The silence is always very telling. Unfortunately, most creationists seem to ignore that this makes their position look incredibly weak. Of course, most of them are just interested in preaching and not interested in the science aspect of it anyway...

(Which makes me wonder why they bother even posting in this forum...)

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

the geologic activities at Mount St. Helens provided us with a remarkable natural field model of significant volcanic and aqueous depositions, as well as deep canyon formation

Since this was posted in another thread, I thought it was time to bump this thread up again.

Mt. St. Helens provides information on deposition of interbedded pyroclastics and mud, but it is in no way representative of how the majority of strata in the geologic column are deposited. This argument has been refuted countless times on this forum but it is still used out of an ignorance for basic geologic principles. Of course when a volcano erupts there will be rapid deposition--but those sediments deposited are not entirely sedimentary at all, are derived from already weathered soils combined with ice from the summit that melts during the eruption, and is soft when eroded. In no way is this representative of say, a limestone or sandstone...even a shale.

Why do these arguments consistenly come up even though they have been discussed multiple times on this board recently and thoroughly refuted?

Why can't the YECs answer the questions in this thread?

 

[Truth in Faith]

It's because there's no consensus. There's no consensus on a lot of things in science, esp. speculation on past events.

 

[gentu]

There's scientific consensus from any relevant field that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with the smallest margin of error (Isochron dating) being less than 1%.

 

[gentu]

There's scientific consesus by cosmologists that the universe is 13.7 billion years old with a margin of error of less than 1%.