The Flood: Varves

[Biliskner]

Biliskner, a few questions:
1. What does evolution have to do with a rock? Evolution is biology, not geology.

Are you serious? That question makes you seem less educated on the subject than all your other posts (it doesn't make you 'seem' less educated on these subjects you keep bringing up, it DOES MAKE YOU less educated, anyone who googles "evolution + geology" gets about 2.5 Million Hits). Please be encouraged to investigate this matter more, and stop putting yourself on the firing line. 'cos your first argument is "easy points".
[size=+4]
Geology & Planetary Science:

[/size] [size=+1]Overviews of Earth Sciences [/size] Fundamentals of Physical Geography : [size=-1]
Designed as an online textbook for university and college students studying introductory Physical Geography. It will contain over 250 pages of information and more than 400 3-D and animated graphics.

[/size] This Dynamic Earth : [size=-1]Text and figures from a book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Many of the images in this book are available in high resolution from the USGS Media for Science page.

[/size] Math/Science Gateway :
[size=-1]Cornell Theory Center -- Earth and Environmental Science

[/size] Earth Dynamics: Special Web Supplement Home
[size=-1]From the journal Science. In addition to featured articles, the "Touring the Web" page lists many fine websites.

[/size] Geology Article Links : [size=-1]Continental Drift, crust composition, how rocks are made, groundwater, glaciation, and geophysical processes.

[/size] Geophysics on the Internet : [size=-1] Check out a database of some 4300 links searchable by type (handouts, data, maps, student projects) or key word. There are plate tectonics animations, maps of the ocean floor, and a course on gems and precious stones. Analyze stream gage data or take a virtual field trip China's famed Stone Forest.

[/size] Atlas of Rocks, Minerals, and Textures : [size=-1]This webpage was constructed to aid undergraduate instruction at the Geology Department of the University of North Carolina.

[/size]

[size=+1]Grand Canyon Geology [/size] The Geology of the Grand Canyon[size=-1]

[/size] Grand Canyon National Park[size=-1] : National Park Service Website

[/size]

[size=+1]Plate Tectonics [size=-1](Also see box at right) [/size][/size] Introduction to Plate Tectonics : [size=-1]Lessons covering the chemical and physical layers of the Earth, historical development of the theory, and descriptions of the location and types of plate boundaries.

[/size] GPS Time Series : [size=-1] The Global Positioning System is a constel-lation of 24 satellites used for navigation and precise geodetic position measurements and provides daily position estimates.

[/size] Plate Tectonics : [size=-1] A great collection of articles and papers related to Plate Tectonics. Contains some beautiful photo collections too. See the World Ocean Floors Map and the online book Plate Tectonics: In the Beginning about many aspects of our dynamic planet. See Plate Tectonics at Berkeley if you have fast web access or lots of time.

[/size] Structural Geology on the Web: [size=-1]See the section on plate tectonics, where you can check out links such as the Paleomap Project, which has animations depicting the wanderings of the continents over the last billion years. [/size]


etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Visit
www . origins.tv/darwin/geology.htm
for 10,000 more example.

You're going to have to do better than that my friend - as I asked:
"explain (please) the rock in the middle of Australia using your evolution 'theory'."
then I'll explain my Flood theories (which you keep critisizing as being "falsified")

2. Are you aware that Glenn is a working, professional geologist?

point?

3. Young Earth Creationists have to explain the flood because the the evidence we have entirely falsifies a global flood. The AiG stuff just doesn't work, whereas the accepted scientific models of geology (again, not evolution) work just fine.

Dogma, and nothing but. Those "viewing from the audience and not participating" - this is a prime example of what evolution dogma asserts:
"the evidence we have entirely falsifies a global flood" = shows you don't understand creation science or the interpretations that geologists make when they see a rock/the interpretations archaeologists make when they dig up old stuff.

www . eadshome.com/images/polystrate%20tree%20big.jpg

The link will take you to a page that shows a fossilized tree, and according to geological science, the tree was fossilized over a few million years (yes you heard right.)

This isn't just one example. There are fossilization of sharks fossilzied in such manner, which evolutionists (not you TEs but the secular evolutionists can't explain) - so what do they do? "convieniently leave it out of textbooks" whether that be primary, secondary, uni, media etc. etc.

after that first question, i eagerly rest my case.

 

[grmorton]

don't take this the wrong way dude, I'm not trying to attack you

Don't take this wrong. Why won't you answer a simple question? Seems strange when you all claim you have all the answers but you won't tell anyone what they are.

use evolution to explain Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory

don't know what Ayers Rock is? well google it and see some pics, and be very scared for the evolutionists

if evolution is correct Ayers rock should be flat. IE: it should be "Ayers pancake"

BS, pure and simple. Ayers rock is more resitive than the material surrounding it. The weaker material has been eroded away leaving Ayers rock above the rest of the landscape. When you actually study some geology, come back and let's discuss.

tell me how Evolution can erode the area AROUND Ayers Rock but not touch this gigantic monstrous piece of red earth - oh btw, i think it is eroding so fast at the moment that in 150 years it WILL be ayers pancake, but don't quote me on that 'fact'

First off, evolution doesn't erode anything--evolution isn't geology and it isn't weathering. Your concepts are frankly laughable.

Remember if Ayers rock loses an inch every thousand years but the surrounding land loses an 1.1 inch every thousand years, Ayers rock will actually be higher above the landscape in a thousand years than it is now. As I said, you need to study geology. You also need to study logic.

 

[grmorton]

Are you serious? That question makes you seem less educated on the subject than all your other posts (it doesn't make you 'seem' less educated on these subjects you keep bringing up, it DOES MAKE YOU less educated, anyone who googles "evolution + geology" gets about 2.5 Million Hits). Please be encouraged to investigate this matter more, and stop putting yourself on the firing line. 'cos your first argument is "easy points".
[size=+4]
Geology & Planetary Science:

[/size][size=+1]Overviews of Earth Sciences [/size]Fundamentals of Physical Geography : [size=-1]
Designed as an online textbook for university and college students studying introductory Physical Geography. It will contain over 250 pages of information and more than 400 3-D and animated graphics.

[/size]This Dynamic Earth : [size=-1]Text and figures from a book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Many of the images in this book are available in high resolution from the USGS Media for Science page.

[/size]Math/Science Gateway :
[size=-1]Cornell Theory Center -- Earth and Environmental Science

[/size]Earth Dynamics: Special Web Supplement Home
[size=-1]From the journal Science. In addition to featured articles, the "Touring the Web" page lists many fine websites.

[/size]Geology Article Links : [size=-1]Continental Drift, crust composition, how rocks are made, groundwater, glaciation, and geophysical processes.

[/size]Geophysics on the Internet : [size=-1]Check out a database of some 4300 links searchable by type (handouts, data, maps, student projects) or key word. There are plate tectonics animations, maps of the ocean floor, and a course on gems and precious stones. Analyze stream gage data or take a virtual field trip China's famed Stone Forest.

[/size]Atlas of Rocks, Minerals, and Textures : [size=-1]This webpage was constructed to aid undergraduate instruction at the Geology Department of the University of North Carolina.

[/size]

[size=+1]Grand Canyon Geology [/size]The Geology of the Grand Canyon[size=-1]

[/size]Grand Canyon National Park[size=-1] : National Park Service Website

[/size]

[size=+1]Plate Tectonics [size=-1](Also see box at right) [/size][/size]Introduction to Plate Tectonics : [size=-1]Lessons covering the chemical and physical layers of the Earth, historical development of the theory, and descriptions of the location and types of plate boundaries.

[/size]GPS Time Series : [size=-1]The Global Positioning System is a constel-lation of 24 satellites used for navigation and precise geodetic position measurements and provides daily position estimates.

[/size]Plate Tectonics : [size=-1]A great collection of articles and papers related to Plate Tectonics. Contains some beautiful photo collections too. See the World Ocean Floors Map and the online book Plate Tectonics: In the Beginning about many aspects of our dynamic planet. See Plate Tectonics at Berkeley if you have fast web access or lots of time.

[/size]Structural Geology on the Web: [size=-1]See the section on plate tectonics, where you can check out links such as the Paleomap Project, which has animations depicting the wanderings of the continents over the last billion years. [/size]


etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Visit
www . origins.tv/darwin/geology.htm
for 10,000 more example.

You're going to have to do better than that my friend - as I asked:
"explain (please) the rock in the middle of Australia using your evolution 'theory'."
then I'll explain my Flood theories (which you keep critisizing as being "falsified")




point?




Dogma, and nothing but. Those "viewing from the audience and not participating" - this is a prime example of what evolution dogma asserts:
"the evidence we have entirely falsifies a global flood" = shows you don't understand creation science or the interpretations that geologists make when they see a rock/the interpretations archaeologists make when they dig up old stuff.

www . eadshome.com/images/polystrate%20tree%20big.jpg

The link will take you to a page that shows a fossilized tree, and according to geological science, the tree was fossilized over a few million years (yes you heard right.)

This isn't just one example. There are fossilization of sharks fossilzied in such manner, which evolutionists (not you TEs but the secular evolutionists can't explain) - so what do they do? "convieniently leave it out of textbooks" whether that be primary, secondary, uni, media etc. etc.

after that first question, i eagerly rest my case.

I love this brand new logical fallacy. Argumentum ad listum--the fallacy of arguing for a position by listing things totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

 

[Biliskner]

Don't take this wrong. Why won't you answer a simple question? Seems strange when you all claim you have all the answers but you won't tell anyone what they are.

i see no question. ... in your 'questioning'.

BS, pure and simple. Ayers rock is more resitive than the material surrounding it. The weaker material has been eroded away leaving Ayers rock above the rest of the landscape. When you actually study some geology, come back and let's discuss.

Remember if Ayers rock loses an inch every thousand years but the surrounding land loses an 1.1 inch every thousand years, Ayers rock will actually be higher above the landscape in a thousand years than it is now. As I said, you need to study geology. You also need to study logic.

so by YOUR logic, the WHOLE of AUSTRALIA was the height of Ayers rock, that eroded away LEAVING Ayers rock?

a simple question... let's see if we get a simple answer.

First off, evolution doesn't erode anything--evolution isn't geology and it isn't weathering. Your concepts are frankly laughable.

evolution erodes the minds of men.

 

[Biliskner]

I love this brand new logical fallacy. Argumentum ad listum--the fallacy of arguing for a position by listing things totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

did you even visit the website? or read the rest of my post?

CHAPTER 5: The Universe, Earth, Natural Spheres, and Gaia
(b). Early History of the Earth

"Scientists believe the Earth began its life about 4.6 billion years ago. The Earth formed as cosmic dust lumped together to form larger and larger particles until 150 million years had passed. At about 4.4 billion years, the young Earth had a mass similar to the mass it has today. The continents probably began forming about 4.2 billion years ago as the Earth continued to cool. The cooling also resulted in the release of gases from the lithosphere, much of which formed the Earth's early atmosphere. Most of the Earth's early atmosphere was created in the first one million years after solidification (4.4 billion years ago). Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor dominated this early atmosphere. Table 5b-1 below describes the three major stages of development of the atmosphere."

The above is evolutionary theory mixed with geological formations of the earth.

I might need to study more geology, but you need to study more evolution; they are not so independent of each other as you might like to think.

 

[Biliskner]

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5b.html

URL for above quote.

 

[Biliskner]

First off, evolution doesn't erode anything--evolution isn't geology and it isn't weathering. Your concepts are frankly laughable.

chemistry has nothing to do with physics. when physicists find that electron shells move from one shell to another it is completely and utterly useless to chemists. chemists don't work at the molecular level, they just mix some stuff together and get some more new stuff. The concept that chemistry and physics might share some stuff in common is frankly laughable.

 

[Vance]

Biliskner: evolution has nothing to do with geology. Period. Yes, they are often discussed on the same web pages, like any other two areas of science. Evolution is a biological theory. Geology is the study of rocks (sorry Glenn for the oversimplification). None of those web sites say anything different than that.

 

[bdfoster]

chemistry has nothing to do with physics. when physicists find that electron shells move from one shell to another it is completely and utterly useless to chemists. chemists don't work at the molecular level, they just mix some stuff together and get some more new stuff. The concept that chemistry and physics might share some stuff in common is frankly laughable.

You know I just can't understand people. If you don't have a clue what you're talking about why not just say nothing? Have you ever taken even the most basic high school chemistry or pyhsics? Chemistry has nothing to do with physics??? The two fields were almost indistinguishable into the 19th century. Was John Dalton a chemist or a physisist?

when physicists find that electron shells move from one shell to another it is completely and utterly useless to chemists.

What??? That is one of the stupidest statements I have heard on this forum. The movement of electrons from shell to shell is the basis for modern chemistry! Fess up. You're the product of home schooling aren't you.

 

[Biliskner]

I believe the historicity of the Genesis account of the Flood because the Bible does NOT teach a global flood. The word which refers to 'earth' and is used in Genesis 6-9 is the word 'eretz'. Young-earthers translate that as meaning 'planet earth'. But is that what the word really means? The word which is translated as 'earth' in Genesis 6 is 'eretz'. Abraham was told to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' which God would show him. If 'eretz' means 'planet earth' then Abram was disobedient to God because he didn't get in a rocketship and go to Mars. Since we know Abram was obedient, and left his 'eretz', (country/land) we have no problem
accepting this translation of 'eretz' as a local area but strangely YEers will argue strongly that 'eretz' in Genesis 6-9 must mean 'planet earth' rather than a localized area of the earth. This is inconsistent.

Some will argue that the phrase 'under the whole heaven' means global. The word 'heaven' has a connotation of the visible vault of the sky. Thus, even this phrase does not require a global flood.

Since the Genesis account does not require a global flood, it means that the earth can be old and still agree with Genesis. The only way to have a young-earth is to have the geological column deposited rapidly and the Global flood is the only way to do that. The evidence I have presented clearly shows that the scientific data supports an old earth. It is good that Genesis can also.

Ok then, let me quote from something that I *think* we both submit to in Authority:

1Pe. 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 1Pe. 3:19 through whom [Or alive in the spirit, 19 through which] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 1Pe. 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 1Pe. 3:21 and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge [Or response] of a good conscience towards God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1Pe. 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand — with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

What do you think of what Peter has to say? Is he speaking metaphorically about Noah and the Global Flood? "in it only a few people, eight in all" were saved? is this few ppl in reference to the "earth" that you say is "local" otherwise if it were to mean "global" Abraham would have to have gone to Mars?
Also note that Peter ACTUALLY says "symbolise" when He MEANS it to be, "this water symobolises baptism", and he doesn't say anything about metaphorically taking Noah's flood as local/global/allegorical.

Your problems are systemmic in Scripture. My problems seem to "not fit" with the scientific data (as you assert). I prefer to have the data not fit in science, than with problems of inconsistency in Scripture. So if I fail your professional geophysicist elistism, I leap with joy, for my identity is not in my/your/the girl next door's professional work as the world dictates, but rather as a Holy God dictates.

ALL I see on your website is OAC vs YEC. I am NOT interested in your minature scaled debates, there are better things to talk about. And as shown here, the text of Genesis which you try and twist and skew is all out of whack, refuted not by me but by the New Testament author.
IE: "The Genesis account DOES REQUIRE a global flood."

 

[Biliskner]

The movement of electrons from shell to shell is the basis for modern chemistry!

really? i didn't know that!!!

point made. point assimilated.

 

[Biliskner]

Evolution is a biological theory.

agreed. (flawed with gaping holes, but agree on a fundamental basis nonetheless.)

Geology is the study of rocks

agreed. but I would add more to that, because it is only half-true.

"Geology is the study of rocks", based within a time-frame of evolution theory.

 

[Vance]

Bilisker, you are assuming that Peter could not refer to the story in the way it was told without believing it was a historically literal account.

 

[Biliskner]

Bilisker, you are assuming that Peter could not refer to the story in the way it was told without believing it was a historically literal account.

so...

Peter believed it to be a global flood but actually it was local.

Peter believed it to be only 8 ppl saved, but actually more was saved 'cos the flood was local.

In essence, maybe only 0-2 ppl (in the end who knows right?) were killed in the flood - wow that is some judgement handed out by God for rebelling against him (having hearts that were evil only ALL the time - Gen 9.)

Now I can see why debates with you guys are futile.
Scripture, even an Epistle, can be taken like a Psalm (essentially).
Expository reading of Scripture, down the drain you go...

I think I will vacate and watch from the sidelines if the rules can be bent so easily.

good night.

 

[SBG]

Bilisker, you are assuming that Peter could not refer to the story in the way it was told without believing it was a historically literal account.

Do you have something that says Peter said it was only a local flood?

And, no Vance, you have not commented on the theological aspects of a local flood. You have dodged the questions I have asked of you about this.

I would be interested in any documentation that you have where Peter says the flood was local.

 

[Vance]

As I have explained many, many times, people at that time did not always view the accounts of the past as necessarily strict literal history. You can refer back to the long thread on that topic if you like, all the evidence is there.

As for the theology of a local flood, there is no problem. Whether God brought punishment on a local group (as with Sodom) or simply adopted an existing story to make a theological point, it still works fine. If you want to read it as an account of a true event, which was then described in a way that can be read as a global event since the message is the same either way, go right ahead. God brings judgment on those who sin, but God is merciful to those that are faithful. That is the theological message of the story, and that message-bearing story can be referred to later by any Christian, including Peter. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to a past non-literal event or person in the same manner as you would a literal event or person, and even to compare that figurative event or person to a literal one.

Think of the analogy of the good samaritan parable reference I have given you.

 

[gluadys]

"Geology is the study of rocks", based within a time-frame of evolution theory.

The time-frame of geology was established before the theory of evolution. Some of the people prominent in establishing that time-frame (e.g William Smith, Georges Cuvier, Lous Agassiz) did not accept evolution.

So, you are incorrect to assume that geological time scales are determined by evolution theory.

 

[grmorton]

i see no question. ... in your 'questioning'.

You quoted me:

No it isn't conjecture, Tim. Explain this. Why does pollen emitted at various times throughout the year vary cyclically within the varves?

"A rhythmite deposited in a lake near Interlaken in Switzerland
consists of thin couplets each containing a light-colored layer
rich in calcium carbonate and a dark layer rich in organic
matter. Proof that the couplets are annual, and therefore
varves, is established on organic evidence, first recognized by
Heer(1865). The sediment contains pollen grains, whose number
per unit volume of sediment varies cyclically being greatest in
the upper parts of the dark layers. The pollen grains of various
genera are stratified systematically according to the season of
blooming. Finally, diatoms are twice as abundant in the light-
colored layers as in the dark. From this evidence it is
concluded that the light layers represent summer seasons and the
dark ones fall, winter and spring. Counts of the layers indicate
a record that is valid through at least the last 7,000 years B.
P. " ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971, p. 400.

emphasis mine. But tell me how the Flood does this.

The question is, how do you explain the cyclicity of the pollen. Cease being concerned with my attitude and starte being concerned with the data.

so by YOUR logic, the WHOLE of AUSTRALIA was the height of Ayers rock, that eroded away LEAVING Ayers rock?

It isn't quite that simple. but basically yes. The rocks can fold so Australia doesn't have to be flat. It is no different than what you see in the mesas in the western US

One of the issues which young-earth creationists don't seem to ever cover is the evidence for long periods of time since the end of the flood. There is geologic work which could only begin and take place after the flood ended and the land was exposed. The formation of Mesas in Arizona and Utah requires the erosion of vast volumes of sediment. But since this sediment is on the surface of the earth today, it must represent the removal of the sediment which was laid down at the end of the flood.

Here is an aerial photo of Monument Valley. The mesas are widespread, are 600-1000 feet tall.

One thing is obvious from this photo. There used to be vast amounts of sediment in between the Mesas and now it is gone. It had to be eroded. Let's look at what forms these mesas.

Now, explain the data please. Quit wiggling like a worm on a hook.





evolution erodes the minds of men.[/QUOTE]

 

[grmorton]

chemistry has nothing to do with physics. when physicists find that electron shells move from one shell to another it is completely and utterly useless to chemists. chemists don't work at the molecular level, they just mix some stuff together and get some more new stuff. The concept that chemistry and physics might share some stuff in common is frankly laughable.

A total non-sequitur

 

[Biliskner]

grmorton, i'd rather squirm like a worm on a hook with not being able to explain your elitist geophysics ( as i have admitted to previously ) than stand before the Judgement Throne of the Lamb and say, "well i had to reinterpret your Apostle Peter's words because... well grmorton told me to!" (we're not even talking about Genesis.. it's Peter's own words.)

My Bible study group at Church is doing Colossians, so here is one for you:

Col. 2:8 See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

You can eat your pollen, and I'll eat the Words of God, like Jeremiah.

Je. 15:16 When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, O LORD God Almighty.