Posted on 02/16/2005 4:43:26 PM PST by DannyTN
That's an interesting BABYLONIAN map.
Did you post that here as a mistake?
However, there are clear and separated cycles of mountain building with subsquent erosion and deposition in the history of the Appalachians, which is rather hard to explain with a single Flood. So I remain unconvinced.
Another good web site is creationscience.com
Another good web site is creationscience.com
The scientists at the time were working with the data they had. Geology involves trying a read a book with most of the paragraphs missing. We find more paragraphs with each passing year, and with the additions refine what we believe the story to be. But we are not taking those paragraphs and shoehorning them to fit into another Book - which is what the young-earth creationists are trying to do. And I notice you didn't even try to counter my point about the young earth model being incapable of explaining the history of the Mississippi Embayment.
Both sides have used models that are too complicated to draw the conclusions advanced. Both sides have advanced arguments based on faulty assumptions.
And both have made corrections as more evidence emerges. But the fundamentals have not changed significantly.
What effect would the upcoming announcement of life on Mars have on this Flood model? Did Mars flood, too? No, I suppose not, but it might have had to flood to keep the myth viable. But, no one is suggesting that Mars flooded as recently as 6000 years ago. 65 million years ago, possibly.
The article didn't address the Appalachians or claim that all mountains were due to the floods.
The flood account itself says that the water covered the highest mountains by 15 cubits. So there were apparently some mountains prior to the flood. But then the psalmist tells us that during the flood that mountains rose and valleys lowered. So there were great changes during or immediately after the flood.
So mountains can be older than the flood, a result of the flood or newer than the flood.
No. I gave it to you to help you explain the great flood.
However, if a mountain range is uplifted and eroded into a delta - and then another range is uplifted and eroded into a delta - and then yet another range is uplifted and eroded down - all in the same region, with a clear, tracable overlap showing that the three mountain ranges were not contemporaries, but formed in cycles millions of years apart - as happened with the Appalicians - you have a bit of problem with a Flood theory.
They aren't that different.
We are both trying to put paragraphs into a book. The evolutionists have built a book based on a naturalistic and uniformitarian framework.
Neither side has changed significantly.
The evolutionists have more people and funding and consequently have more paragraphs for their book. They also have more edits.
They are profoundly different. Geologists start with the evidence and then try to formulate a theory that encompasses that evidence. The young earth creationists start with a theory and bang the square pegs into the round holes to try and make them fit.
The evolutionists have more people and funding and consequently have more paragraphs for their book.
Yeah, right.
They also have more edits.
That's what happens when you move from evidence to theory instead of from theory to evidence.
The existence of mountains formed in cycles millions of years apart doesn't put you in conflict with Flood Theory but rather in conflict with a young earth.
However, how do you know that formed over millions of years? Mt. St. Helens blew away many preconceived notions about how long it takes many things to form, including feets of layered strata, polystrat trees, canyons, etc. Might it be possible that these mountains formed with overlaps in a much shorter timeframe?
How does a map from a pagan religion that was developed after the flood help explain the flood?
I am also listening to Greenspan being "questioned" by Sanders, Waters, Maloney, etal.
As I watch him sit there while they rant, I am thinking that is how it feels to be on these threads.
It puts me in conflict with both. If the Flood eroded one of the mountain ranges, how did it eroded the other two that did not exist at the time?
However, how do you know that formed over millions of years? Mt. St. Helens blew away many preconceived notions about how long it takes many things to form, including feets of layered strata, polystrat trees, canyons, etc. Might it be possible that these mountains formed with overlaps in a much shorter timeframe?
And this is what happens when you shoehorn a fact into your preconceptions. With your preconception, you say that Mt. St. Helens is a mountain. The Appalachians are mountains. Therefore, A can explain B.
A geologist observes that Mt. St. Helens is volcanic. The Appalachians were not formed by volcanoes. Therefore, A does not explain B, as A was formed by a very different process than B.
And why are you assuming that 1 of the mountains was pre-flood and 2 were post flood? Is it possible that all three were preflood? A preflood mountaing may not have been as much rock and may have eroded faster.
"And this is what happens when you shoehorn a fact into your preconceptions. With your preconception, you say that Mt. St. Helens is a mountain. The Appalachians are mountains. Therefore, A can explain B."
No, I didn't say A can explain B. I said A demonstrated C which previously thought to take millions of years could occur in a short time frame. Therefore might it be possible that whatever you are looking at D, that makes you think B is very old, might also have occured much faster.
Understand, I'm not saying anything about Mt. St. Helens directly explains the Appalachians. But if science was so totally and commpletekly wrong, embarrasingly wrong about how quickly some of the things Mt. St. Helens accomplished. Might it be that you are wrong about the appalachians?
But the Flood is used to explain how all those depositional formations formed such as the Catskill Delta. If the mountains and their subsequent depositional formations are pre-Flood, then the Flood can't explain those. You can't have it both ways.
A preflood mountaing may not have been as much rock and may have eroded faster.
Congratulations. That is the most novel young earth theory I've seen to date.
Understand, I'm not saying anything about Mt. St. Helens directly explains the Appalachians. But if science was so totally and commpletekly wrong, embarrasingly wrong about how quickly some of the things Mt. St. Helens accomplished. Might it be that you are wrong about the appalachians?
That is the logic that liberals use in politics. Because A happened, that means B and C can be suspect without having to do the hard work of demonstrating that they are suspect. Geology as a science is a few hundred years old. There are many possible geological events that we have never witnessed (and I hope that with most of them that the human race doesn't witness them anytime soon).
Seeing the event and the end result of a geological process gives you the entire book, not just the occasional paragraph. So the hummocky hills that formed from Mt. St. Helen's collapse all off a sudden explained hummocky hills around Mt. Shasta. Before you had just the paragraphs but no clear relation. Now you do.
However, what is not in doubt is the grand sweep of the geological column and the countless cycles that sweep represents. No Flood and no young earth model can begin to explain even that fundamental aspect of geology - let alone work on the details of the various formations in that column.
Agreed, both can't be right. That doesn't mean both are wrong.
Congratulations. That is the most novel young earth theory I've seen to date.
Thank you, but after rereading it, I may not have been clear. If the earth is young, then the earliest mountains, pre-Flood mountains, may have eroded faster since the soil may not have hardened into rock.
I think it's consistent with a YEC even if it's novel.
"That is the logic that liberals use in politics."
Argument by name calling.
"There are many possible geological events that we have never witnessed
Thank You.
No Flood and no young earth model can begin to explain even that fundamental aspect of geology
And then the never witnessed geologcal events are summarily dismissed.
Still trying to have it both ways, eh?
Thank you, but after rereading it, I may not have been clear. If the earth is young, then the earliest mountains, pre-Flood mountains, may have eroded faster since the soil may not have hardened into rock.
Strike 2. Soil is a result of erosion and is a thin layer. Mountains by definition don't consist of very much soil because of their erosional gradient. The fact that you are preposing such theories shows you really don't know much about geological processes.
I think it's consistent with a YEC even if it's novel.
I would hope that accuracy would be more important than novelty or consistency with your theory.
Argument by name calling.
Mine was an accurate observation - liberals often use the same "logic" in their debates against facts they find inconvenient as you were using there. Which brings us to another favored liberal tactic - declaring that an accurate observation is somehow name calling.
And then the never witnessed geologcal events are summarily dismissed.
Oh, the never witnessed events are the kinds of things that would kill millions if not billions of people. There are ample records of them in the geological column. Supervolcano eruptions (the last one, tens of thousands of years ago, is estimated to have killed all but a few thousand of the humans on the planet at the time). Flood basalts. Catastrophic meteor impacts. Hillary Clinton as president.
Things I'd rather not ever witness. But we can still make reasonable predictions as to what they would entail.
The fact that I'm proposing such theories, shows that I haven't bought into a billions year old earth. And that I don't presume that all soil came from rock.
Hillary Clinton as president.
As old as evolutionists may think she is, I still do not believe she is much older than 6000 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.