Karsts and the flood. Things YEC leaders never show their followers

[dad]

Within the YEC view (even within David Tyler’s view that the Cambrian and Ordovician are the only flood deposits), this formation would be deposited by the flood. Shortly after the deposition of the Ellenberger it had to be lithified. How do we know? Because there is an erosional unconformity at the top of the Ellenburger and below the next higher bed, the Simpson Formation.

But what is interesting, is the age of the dolomitization of the Ellenburger limestones. There are two views of dolomite, which is a calcium magnesium carbonate rather than a calcium carbonate. Some have argued that dolomite was laid down initially and other have argued that it was limestone first and then chemical reactions changed it to dolomite.

My view of the cambrian, to date would be that it was from the time of the garden of Eden, and afterwards, when a great dying occured. I think the massive uplifts, and sloshing around of the flood year would have transported, exposed, uplifted, and otherwise affected the cambrian layer in places on earth. For example we see cambrian deposits high in the Canadian Rockies, near Field, in the Burgess shale. Just because it is way up high now, does not mean the cambrian was all laid down in the flood year, as I understand it! Now there is a lot of dolomite in the same mountain ranges and your statement of the way it may have been formed is interesting. In the Handbook of the Canadian Rockies, by Ben Gadd, the possibility is mentioned that it is felt a rapid evaporation may have been the trigger for the chemical reactions to happen, turning the limestone to dolomite. This makes me think, now what could cause a 'rapid evaporation'? --Great wind!

Thus we must have the following sequence of events to explain the data:
1. Cambrian through Mississippian Redwall be deposited.
2. Redwall must be uplifted above sea water.
3. Freshwater rain must dissolve the limestone—lots of time
4. Caves must be lowered again.
5. Surprise Canyon, Supai Group, Hermit Shale, Coconino Sandstone, Toroweap group, Kaibab Limestone and Triassic up to the Chinle must be deposited.
6. Rocks must be hardened
7. The cave collapses allowing Chinle to fall into cave
8. Younger sediments which today lie only north of the Canyon were deposited.
9. Regional erosion removes thousands of cubic km of Triassic and younger rocks from Grand Canyon area

Young-earth creationism has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

So, cambrian 'deposited' I think we'd need to look closer at. Would, cambrian exposed, or uppiled, maybe be applicable here? Then, how do we know it is, for example, cambrian, in this instance? Is it just by the fossils? -Redwall uplifted? I expect a lot of violent tectonics in the flood year happened. Mr Brown even suggests whole mountain ranges uplifted, I think, as an extreme example.
" Freshwater rain must dissolve the limestone" I think the water in the flood was far less salty as a rule, than the present oceans. Then there is the post flood floods, and possibly emtying of massive 'lake seas' as some natural dam gave out.
As for the rest, it is long in the tooth, and clear as mud. How about simplifying the root issue (s) in a bite sized few sentences, or paragraphs? Otherwise, it becomes a mere statement of personal belief, rather than actual point of discussion.

 

[kofh2u]

"Young-earth creationism has been weighed in the balance and found wanting"...

Hello morton, I see your expertise is spread far and wide.

Very good lesson for us. Thanks.

I find it very reassuring that no manner of logic or facts can shake the mind-set of men already certain of their beliefs.

Remember that Christians do not fail to remind us that Faith is belief in things we do not Know.

Your challange to YEC's, on your own turf of science, will fail, not as a reflection on YEC's so much, but as commentary on the Human Condition.

This would appear to reflect badly upon the YEC's, and would seem to support your accusation of "meni, meni, tekel, upharsin" if it wasn't that it applied so generally to all Modern Homos.

What is really feuling YEC intranscience iis "Authority."

They use scripture to support their veiws in other arenas, like politics. There they see themselves as The Religious Right.
And, by "Right" they don't necessarily mean "correct." They mean self-rightegous. Their mantra is, "God said it." From this they have much to tell us about our society. So, YEC arguments are aimed at maintaining the power inherent in the momentum of propaganda that they fully understand scripture and speak on all other subjects with such firm foundation.

So, what I am saying is that as long as your science can be "fenced" with their sword of doubt, they may continue as if you have been answered intelligently. I suspect that YECs know both that you are right and that you can not prove it with mere words.

 

[dad]

"Young-earth creationism has been weighed in the balance and found wanting"...

Hello morton, I see your expertise is spread far and wide.

Very good lesson for us. Thanks.

I find it very reassuring that no manner of logic or facts can shake the mind-set of men already certain of their beliefs.

Remember that Christians do not fail to remind us that Faith is belief in things we do not Know.

Your challange to YEC's, on your own turf of science, will fail, not as a reflection on YEC's so much, but as commentary on the Human Condition.

This would appear to reflect badly upon the YEC's, and would seem to support your accusation of "meni, meni, tekel, upharsin" if it wasn't that it applied so generally to all Modern Homos.

What is really feuling YEC intranscience iis "Authority."

They use scripture to support their veiws in other arenas, like politics. There they see themselves as The Religious Right.
And, by "Right" they don't necessarily mean "correct." They mean self-rightegous. Their mantra is, "God said it." From this they have much to tell us about our society. So, YEC arguments are aimed at maintaining the power inherent in the momentum of propaganda that they fully understand scripture and speak on all other subjects with such firm foundation.

So, what I am saying is that as long as your science can be "fenced" with their sword of doubt, they may continue as if you have been answered intelligently. I suspect that YECs know both that you are right and that you can not prove it with mere words.

Thanks for the silly little scienceless rant.

 

[1denomination]

Thanks for the silly little scienceless rant.

now that was funny.

 

[Physics_guy]

Thanks for the silly little scienceless rant.

Geeze, old dad here has gone and blown yet another irony meter. I think I actually heard my spare blow out in the garage after reading this post. You know you should really put warnings on your posts there dad.

 

[dad]

Geeze, old dad here has gone and blown yet another irony meter. I think I actually heard my spare blow out in the garage after reading this post. You know you should really put warnings on your posts there dad.

OK. This is a warning to all old age folks, you may post near lunatic rants, devoid of all science, but if you try to use real science you become fair game for the creationist guns. ha

 

[L'Anatra]

As for the rest, it is long in the tooth, and clear as mud. How about simplifying the root issue (s) in a bite sized few sentences, or paragraphs? Otherwise, it becomes a mere statement of personal belief, rather than actual point of discussion.

Why, dear old dad? Is it too much for you to take in?

Why does it seem that creationists often want a world more complex than they can possibly imagine explained in a "bite-sized few sentences or paragraphs"?

 

[dad]

Why, dear old dad? Is it too much for you to take in?

Why? Well, why don't I clip the whole new testament, and paste it here? Then I could say, the answer is there, just read it right! Any topic if covered thouroughly needs to have each item looked at closely. This is why listing a pile of evo stuff is not the way to go, unless the only object is to try to dazzle the folks who have no time to sort through the rubbish. Put a thing or two on the table, and see how it fares. Remember, you are not talking to the converted here.

 

[Asimov]

grmorton I would like to say that I have read many of your post. I have a great deal of respect for you as a scientist but as of this last statement you have lost that. As a christian man you should try to refrain from such slander.
God bless

He resents that! Slander is spoken....written is libel.

 

[kofh2u]

Why? Well, why don't I clip the whole new testament, and paste it here? Then I could say, the answer is there, just read it right! Any topic if covered thouroughly needs to have each item looked at closely. This is why listing a pile of evo stuff is not the way to go, unless the only object is to try to dazzle the folks who have no time to sort through the rubbish. Put a thing or two on the table, and see how it fares. Remember, you are not talking to the converted here.

I think you were quite correct in what you said. I was pointing out that science is not the weak point in Creationiam.

My point was that a scienceless observation is hard for Creationists to defend. One of these is just the common sense straight, literal reading of Genesis.

Creationists argue the fundamental postulate that God plainly and literally said "seven days passed."

But, the 24 hour day was not even created until the FOURTH "day."

Gen. 1:14 And God, (The Universal Force) said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, (astronomical symbolic references), and for times, (the four seasons), and for days, (the first ever "day" of 24 hours), and (365 day) years:

 

[dad]

My point was that a scienceless observation is hard for Creationists to defend

Ahh. Well, not really! Truth lovers, and mystery solvers of science have always been largely christian. I respect and enjoy real scientific obsevation, and use it as well. Now when it comes to science of the physical only little box trying to be too big for it's britches, and so called date things, why, naturally, my trigger finger gets to twiching!

But, the 24 hour day was not even created until the FOURTH "day."

Now, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. You'll have to come on out here, and prove it, or back down. If it's just the old 'sun wasn't made till then' line, well, I'll deal with it right now. So what!? He had a light in existance from the getgo, and the Johnny come lately sun, only filled it's shoes, when it rode into the sunset! It marked the days, just fine before that.

As far as Gen. 1:14 and the 'and for days', bit that means they were useful for men in marking the same, not that days only started then, remember, after all, we were already counting the days here, and were what, on the fourth, or so already!?
Just look back a bit, and see where it says 'the morning and the evening were the second day' etc.

 

[Big Rob]

Ahh. Well, not really! Truth lovers, and mystery solvers of science have always been largely christian. I respect and enjoy real scientific obsevation, and use it as well. Now when it comes to science of the physical only little box trying to be too big for it's britches, and so called date things, why, naturally, my trigger finger gets to twiching!

Now, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. You'll have to come on out here, and prove it, or back down. If it's just the old 'sun wasn't made till then' line, well, I'll deal with it right now. So what!? He had a light in existance from the getgo, and the Johnny come lately sun, only filled it's shoes, when it rode into the sunset! It marked the days, just fine before that.

As far as Gen. 1:14 and the 'and for days', bit that means they were useful for men in marking the same, not that days only started then, remember, after all, we were already counting the days here, and were what, on the fourth, or so already!?
Just look back a bit, and see where it says 'the morning and the evening were the second day' etc.

Dad, you so crazy.

 

[kofh2u]

Dad, you so crazy.

No, wait.
That is THE best answer I have gotten from a YEC... the creation of the day on the fourth day was like the invention of the calendar. These were like days for counting out.

But what about the first light separated from darkness?

Gen. 1:18 And to rule over the (cycle of the @12 hour) day and over the (cycle of the @12 hour) night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God, (The Universal Force), saw that it was good.


And, who was countin'... I mean before the 6th "yom" (Hebrew: day)?

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Force), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in pantheistic expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly pantheistic organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.





(parentheses are FB Interpretations)

 

[dad]

But what about the first light separated from darkness?

The light that was first created before the stars, and the sun was a type of light we are not given a lot of detail about. When looked at from a perspective that the spiritual, and physical were once joined, then it would make some sense. The light we would have had in the merged state, would have had the limitless properties of the spirit, therefore, Adam would see thier light. If it was light in our physical present sense, he never would have seen the majority of the stars in heaven, as the light is too slow, here now.
I don't know if the light before the first day was this type of light or not, but, it was before the fall of man, at this point, so I guess it would have been pre split light! Maybe we will see it again, in the new heavens, and earth, when the spiritual is again with us, as will God, and angels, and eternal life be!

Gen. 1:18 And to rule over the (cycle of the @12 hour) day ....

Israel was a nation before they had a king to rule over them, so the days existed, before they had some great lights to 'rule' over them. To me, it sounds more like 'Let these pretty real big lights be so bright, they far outshine the competition lights, and really "rule", In the modern, teeny bopper sense.

 

[searchingforanswers1]

The light that was first created before the stars, and the sun was a type of light we are not given a lot of detail about. When looked at from a perspective that the spiritual, and physical were once joined, then it would make some sense. The light we would have had in the merged state, would have had the limitless properties of the spirit, therefore, Adam would see thier light. If it was light in our physical present sense, he never would have seen the majority of the stars in heaven, as the light is too slow, here now.
I don't know if the light before the first day was this type of light or not, but, it was before the fall of man, at this point, so I guess it would have been pre split light! Maybe we will see it again, in the new heavens, and earth, when the spiritual is again with us, as will God, and angels, and eternal life be!

Israel was a nation before they had a king to rule over them, so the days existed, before they had some great lights to 'rule' over them. To me, it sounds more like 'Let these pretty real big lights be so bright, they far outshine the competition lights, and really "rule", In the modern, teeny bopper sense.

dad you are doing damage to the reputation of clint eastwood.

 

[dad]

dad you are doing damage to the reputation of clint eastwood.

Well, gmmorton had a hat on, and I say theres always someone out there with a bigger one!

 

[jjdoe]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to grmorton again.

 

[kofh2u]

The light that was first created before the stars, and the sun was a type of light we are not given a lot of detail about. When looked at from a perspective that the spiritual, and physical were once joined, then it would make some sense. The light we would have had in the merged state, would have had the limitless properties of the spirit, therefore, Adam would see thier light. If it was light in our physical present sense, he never would have seen the majority of the stars in heaven, as the light is too slow, here now.
I don't know if the light before the first day was this type of light or not, but, it was before the fall of man, at this point, so I guess it would have been pre split light! Maybe we will see it again, in the new heavens, and earth, when the spiritual is again with us, as will God, and angels, and eternal life be!

Israel was a nation before they had a king to rule over them, so the days existed, before they had some great lights to 'rule' over them. To me, it sounds more like 'Let these pretty real big lights be so bright, they far outshine the competition lights, and really "rule", In the modern, teeny bopper sense.

I really like the explanation.

You wax very poetic and I do want o say that at least your answers are honest. People posting here must remember that the jury is not present in these discussions. In fact, the jury MAY not even have been born yet, you know.

What is at issue, as it was in the days og Galilleo, is whether the church can regain its balance and find complementary theology to sit beside the rapidly expanding knowledge Daniel said would abound in these end times.

If the Fundamentalists had answers that did more than frustrate scientists and academic, secular members of the community, if they could reasonable explain their insistence on saying what they do in regard to scripture, then this present divided community would remain at the stand off.

But, there is no hope in the future that we will be so unfortunate. As Daniel also said, "The hand writing is in the textbooks."

The Fundamentalists' days are numbered when this is the best that can be said in response, even before the hard questions are asked.


Rev. 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich (a large denominational
church), and increased with goods (accumulated art treasure, land, and income from tithes), and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations), and miserable, (entrapped in erroneous doctrine and blind dogma), and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):




(interpretations in brackets)

 

[dad]

What is at issue, as it was in the days og Galilleo, is whether the church can regain its balance and find complementary theology to sit beside the rapidly expanding knowledge

Just because knowledge is increased in this time does not mean it is good knowledge. In fact, the reason it will have to be stopped, I think is because man would blow all life, and the planet to bits, if He didn't step in. He has to. Nevertheless, the cream of men's knowledge is still literally foolishness, compared to His!
Soon, all the world will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.

But, there is no hope in the future that we will be so unfortunate. As Daniel also said, "The hand writing is in the textbooks."

I think you mean, on the wall.

The Fundamentalists' days are numbered when this is the best that can be said in response, even before the hard questions are asked.

You could be right, but since we have no idea which questions you have in mind, and which fundies, the answer is not a foregone conlusion either. It is the fundamentalists of the science of the box that have the wrong answers here.

and knowest not that thou art wretched (without secularly acceptable scripture confirmations),

Don't worry about it, God, nor we need unbelievers to 'confirm' anything. "The word "secular" is derived from the Latin word saeculum (age), and originally means "happening once in an age". http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Secular
Their age is almost up! ". But secular also means, in different contexts, long (relative to something else) because an "age" is a long time, and (relatively) short because an age is "not very long compared to eternity".
So there we have it, could it be a case of eternity envy? They want to try to make their ages sound 'long'! Ha.

and poor (in a declining membership), and nake (and unprotected from the ever growing Age of Enlightment):

Hope you don't think the so called science of the box is the lightsource here, and the bible is the darkness?

 

[Chris H]

Thanks for the info, Glen!

Chris