Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
299 replies to this topic

#281 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2009 - 05:41 AM

People who exhibit no retention for information and belabor points by forgetting the information they've already learned to simply force people to restate what they were already told to satisfaction, once or repeatedly, are ejected as time wasters.

If you've been debating this issue for any length of time and you don't understand what a creationist would say is unique about the petrified forests (positions, root conditions, parallel contemporary occurrences, etc...) and say that you have no knowledge of creationist evidence, chances are you are here as a time waster.

How you respond to AFJ will give us a good clue to see if our suspicions are correct. We want honest civil dialogues. If you have a reoccurring case of amnesia to rehash points that have already been produced then you'll find yourself ejected.

View Post


So. . .if I respond to AFJ in the "wrong way" I can expect to be banned? Am I allowed to know what this "wrong way" is prior to replying? This is all pretty puzzling since I've never brought this issue up here before, never seen anyone present an explanation that accounts for the evidence mentioned previously here or elsewhere, and am posting a perceived problem with YE geology in a thread that's actually titled "Geology Problems for YE Creationists". I didn't see anything resembling this in this forum's rules, but it's possible I missed it. Please clarify as to what kind of response is "not allowed" under forum rules. Am I not allowed to point out the flaws in this explanation? Am I not allowed to point out evidence this model fails to explain? Am I not allowed to present evidence against this model?

#282 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 September 2009 - 09:35 AM

So. . .if I respond to AFJ in the "wrong way" I can expect to be banned?  Am I allowed to know what this "wrong way" is prior to replying?

View Post

Sure. I am making a judgement call that says you've been at this for a while. Yes or no?

If the level of dialogue you are going to offer is a constant request to be 'educated' when you have no intention of retaining the argument ergo forgetting it later to need 'reminded' then your participation here is unwanted.

I'm just being honest with you Rex, that I perceive someone in your character who has been at this for a while and knowing the level of naiveness your presenting, and the way you are presenting it, screams that you are here playing games like you've done before.

So humor us and don't dodge a simple question from a leader here. How long have you been debating this issue, please?

#283 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2009 - 01:20 PM

Sure. I am making a judgement call that says you've been at this for a while. Yes or no?


I've had discussions about the age of the earth and evolution for quite a while. Originally I was a fairly outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design and spent quite a while vehemently defending ID and trying to destroy any arguments for evolution and, by my own estimation, I was really good at it. At some point, however, I realized that I wasn't actually researching issues; all I was doing was looking for snippets here or pieces of evidence there that supported my view instead of honestly looking at the breadth of evidence. And when I looked through that breadth of evidence seeking a true understanding of the process' involved instead of looking for my next rebuttal I realized that I had been completely wrong. That was the better part of two years ago I guess. Hope that helps.

If the level of dialogue you are going to offer is a constant request to be 'educated' when you have no intention of retaining the argument ergo forgetting it later to need 'reminded' then your participation here is unwanted.


[edit]
On reviewing the forum rules I guess the appearance of being disingenuous is not required to be considered a time waster. On this note please just let me know which topics qualify as "time wasters" so I can avoid them.

If you have an example of anything I've posted that violates forum rules please alert me immediately so I can address it.

#284 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 September 2009 - 02:29 PM

I've had discussions about the age of the earth and evolution for quite a while.  Originally I was a fairly outspoken proponent of Intelligent Design and spent quite a while vehemently defending ID and trying to destroy any arguments for evolution and, by my own estimation, I was really good at it.  At some point, however, I realized that I wasn't actually researching issues; all I was doing was looking for snippets here or pieces of evidence there that supported my view instead of honestly looking at the breadth of evidence.  And when I looked through that breadth of evidence seeking a true understanding of the process' involved instead of looking for my next rebuttal I realized that I had been completely wrong.  That was the better part of two years ago I guess.  Hope that helps.

View Post

Judging by your present postings and the questions you ask, you've either worked very hard to forget the arguments in the last two years or you didn't have a clue when you were 'successfully defending' ID.

On reviewing the forum rules I guess the appearance of  being disingenuous is not required to be considered a time waster.  On this note please just let me know which topics qualify as "time wasters" so I can avoid them.

If you have an example of anything I've posted that violates forum rules please alert me immediately so I can address it.

View Post

We aren't here to babysit. It's not topics that are time wasters, it participants that are time wasters. You have been shaping up nicely as a time waster. If you are at a loss, I have to remind you that we aren't here to babysit or hold people's hands and we withhold the right to edit posters rather then posts so members can enjoy dialogues with those that can retain information versus evo-amnesia which results in evo-babble.

If you wish to amend 'instructorous' to your pseudonym, can I recommend taking some personal time to study? This forum has many great threads dealing with the issues that you think there are no answers for.

Try AiG. Every thing here that you have believed there is 'no answer' for I found article after article at the top of the heap dealing with your concerns. Are you really interested in learning or are you just trying to trip people up?

#285 Guest_Instructorus Rex_*

Guest_Instructorus Rex_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:20 PM

We aren't here to babysit. It's not topics that are time wasters, it participants that are time wasters. You have been shaping up nicely as a time waster. If you are at a loss, I have to remind you that we aren't here to babysit or hold people's hands and we withhold the right to edit posters rather then posts so members can enjoy dialogues with those that can retain information versus evo-amnesia which results in evo-babble.


I'm still at a loss. . .do you have a specific example of something I've written that illustrates what your talking about?

Try AiG. Every thing here that you have believed there is 'no answer' for I found article after article at the top of the heap dealing with your concerns. Are you really interested in learning or are you just trying to trip people up?

View Post


So. . .if AIG discusses it the subject is off-limits here?

#286 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 September 2009 - 06:38 PM

So. . .if AIG discusses it the subject is off-limits here?

View Post

:) :lol:

So, when it comes to geology you're supposedly all technical and exacting. When it comes to ordinary speech you miss plain meaning. ;)

Can anybody else see the complete perversion in logic deriving the above question from this:

Try AiG. Every thing here that you have believed there is 'no answer' for I found article after article at the top of the heap dealing with your concerns. Are you really interested in learning or are you just trying to trip people up?

View Post


How does this statement give even the slightest indication that AiG is off-limits here?

I'm closing this thread for now.

#287 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 01:27 AM

It was like a good old treasure hunt and I found it!


View Post


A fellow student with me in grad schoo, Daniel Harris, l studied these exact same exumed channel segments. He named the one shown as "Channel B"

#288 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 21 June 2010 - 01:36 AM

That sounds like it fits perfectly with the additional features that I pointed out! Thanks Oliver. You just offered something that may be helpful here. Look at this picture:



That big long ridge is interesting. It looks like it was breached in several locations. If I were to put a hypothesis forward, I would say that canyon formation caused a slower and not so violent secondary flood event that would have gently exhumed that river bed.

Actually if you have a chance look up this image for yourself and take a close look and the main river channel. It looks like a broad river but it's actually water colored because it's filled with vegetation. the original river channel doesn't look like it came through that canyon wall in an aggressive manner at all.

View Post


The darker color is most probably the fact that the edges of the exumed channel are raised in relief above the valley floor. The scarp on one side casts a shadow that appears darker. You can see some cliffs (not exumed channels) in the upper left hand corner showing the same thing happening.

#289 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 25 June 2010 - 05:36 AM

It's in the Cedar Mountain Formation near Green River, Utah.  Don't have the exact lat. & lon.

View Post


I think it is at about:

38 degs 62' N
110 degs 15' W

#290 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 17 July 2010 - 03:14 PM

And Creationwiki is a neutral source of scientific info?   <_<

You missed the whole point of the message.  I don't recommend using regular Wiki or Creationwiki as a primary source for scientific information because they both are subject to non-neutral entries from their biased editors.

For the same reason I won't use TalkOrigins or AIG or ICR as a primary source.  I stated clearly I prefer to reference the actual research papers with the raw data wherever possible.

Can you think of a better way to stay intellectually honest and eliminate the bias from both sides?

View Post


Assist24,


I'm not sure I'm following the reasoning for the exhumed riverbed not being young. First it is in the Colorado Pleateau, which is not a plateau, but a geologic basin. The Grand Canyon is in the southwest corner of the basin. The Colorado River follows a northeasterly meandering path through the basin. The CP contains many slot canyons and other dried river beds, some of them are channels with smaller channels complete with hogsbacks like your exhumed river. I have already done some research posts on this in other threads. I would encourage you to take a look.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47762

The CP also contains the wave, which we have debated over aeolian or hydrological origin on this site. It is also similar in features with nearby slot canyons which are known to be of water origin. Also much of the sand in the southwest is coated in hematite, which shows it to have been a substrate in water.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=48022

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=47510

All these things are supporting evidence for massive drainage events after the flood.

Without all the data of the surrounding area it is hard to give anything but speculation. General observations and facts. The river bed is shallow, and a channel could be cut through silt and mud rather quickly by water--this is supported by research done at Mt. St Helens. There are also dunes of shale in the CP, but I don't know where they are in orientation to this. THe point is that outburst floods from lakes or even a melting glacier (it is believed an ice age occurred after the flood) could account for sand transport into the channel.

#291 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 July 2010 - 08:22 AM

First it is in the Colorado Pleateau, which is not a plateau, but a geologic basin.

View Post


Why would you make this claim? I am a geologist and I don't agree.

#292 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 July 2010 - 01:50 AM

Why would you make this claim? I am a geologist and I don't agree.

View Post


"The Colorado Plateau is a physiographic "province," a region geologically and topographically distinct from other parts of the West. Originally named the "Colorado Plateaus" by explorer John Wesley Powell, the "Plateau" is in fact a huge basin ringed by highlands and filled with plateaus."

Link

I made an overstatement. It is not all a basin but contains a basin and plateaus. Colorado Plateaus, the original name is more accurate. It is not one big plateau. There is plenty of drainage evidence was my point.

#293 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 26 July 2010 - 03:47 AM

"The Colorado Plateau is a physiographic "province," a region geologically and topographically distinct from other parts of the West. Originally named the "Colorado Plateaus" by explorer John Wesley Powell, the "Plateau" is in fact a huge basin ringed by highlands and filled with plateaus."

Link

I made an overstatement.  It is not all a basin but contains a basin and plateaus.  Colorado Plateaus, the original name is more accurate.  It is not one big plateau.  There is plenty of drainage evidence was my point.

View Post


The person writing that piece was a layman and not a geologist. It is obvious that he is not a particularly informed source from a geologic point of view and appears to have garbled whatever information he obtained in research. I doubt you can find an truely informed source making this same claim.

Taken as a whole The Colorado Plateau actually is far better being called a plateau in a geologic sense than it is as one huge basin. Most plateaus do have drainage, so I don't understand the point you are making. There is not much of it that really should be termed a basin. True, the Uintah Basin lies in the northernmost part, but for the most part it is in fact elevated and flat, like a plateau. It is more like one big plateau with smaller plateaus within it.

#294 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 07 August 2010 - 08:25 AM

The person writing that piece was a layman and not a geologist. It is obvious that he is not a particularly informed source from a geologic point of view and appears to have garbled whatever information he obtained in research. I doubt you can find an truely informed source making this same claim.

Taken as a whole The Colorado Plateau actually is far better being called a plateau in a geologic sense than it is as one huge basin. Most plateaus do have drainage, so I don't understand the point you are making. There is not much of it that really should be termed a basin. True, the Uintah Basin lies in the northernmost part, but for the most part it is in fact elevated and flat, like a plateau. It is more like one big plateau with smaller plateaus within it.

View Post


I am not defending Ray Wheeler's credentials. I don't know him or his education. It does seem to me he is rather accurate in his general observation. The Colorado Plateau is a raised region, but if you look at a relief map, the raised regions tend to "ring" a rather large lower area which leads southwest to the Grand Canyon. This is what he says, however he is wrong in calling it a basin as a whole--you are correct.

I would not discount him though, as he has posted several pertinent photos of the CP on the web. These include large dried channels, and one--shale dunes. These seem to me to be an indicator of massive drainage --lending support the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon is a result of catastrophic drainage. I hope geologists from a creationist persuasion will investigate the area more extensively.

3. AP: “Third Manmade Grand Canyon Flood Planned”

The Associated Press reports that officials plan to flood the Grand Canyon for the third time since 1996 in an effort to restore an ecosystem altered by a dam.

The 1963 Glen Canyon Dam transformed the Colorado River that runs through the Grand Canyon, taming annual floods and shifting the balance of fish living in the river, leading to the extinction of four fish species. Since 1996, two artificial floods have been created in an attempt to replicate the once-usual spring floods that flushed the canyon out and restored the ecosystem.

If the U.S. Department of the Interior approves next month’s planned flood, the bypass tubes of Glen Canyon Dam will be opened again. With each attempt, scientists are studying the effect of the floodings in an attempt to restore originally native species.

The planned flood will increase Colorado River flows through the Grand Canyon to 41,000 cubic feet (1161 m3) per second for almost three days and will “scour and reshape miles of sandy banks on the floor of the Grand Canyon.”

It’s interesting to note how this flood, which still has the power to reshape sandy banks, mimics the effects of the great Flood, which would have unleashed rivers of unbelievable force as the waters receded from the heights of the earth and flowed toward ocean basins. The Grand Canyon was likely formed as the Colorado Plateau was lifted above sea level during the second half of the Flood year and the waters surged out to the Pacific Ocean.



#295 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 05 February 2011 - 03:48 AM

Perhaps you think we are ignorant of the geologic timescale.  The whole idea of a bunch of asteroids and rocks coming together and melting into a perfect sphere while at the same time keeping in perfect non-migrating orbit taxes one's patience (to be totally honest).  Nothing can show us in the present that anything like this could happen--including the asteroid belt.

Then to believe that the first atmosphere was created by volcanoes which have so much CO2.  Other variations of this model show alot of water vapor. This model is ludicrous.  The green house effect would have given an atmosphere of severe heat and the water vapor would have never condensed to form your oceans.  Check out the atmosphere of VENUS.  Sorry, Instructorous, I don't mean to be so blunt, but the first tenants of the geologic timescale are ridiculous.

View Post


Actually you do seem unclear about the geologic time scale as hsown in this discussion. The geologic time scale doesn't really address what you talk about here. It really addresses the study of stratified rocks to time. What you cite here are not the first tenants of the geologic time scale, regardless of what you consider ridiculous.

#296 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:35 AM

Actually you do seem unclear about the geologic time scale as hsown in this discussion. The geologic time scale doesn't really address what you talk about here. It really addresses the study of stratified rocks to time. What you cite here are not the first tenants of the geologic time scale, regardless of what you consider ridiculous.

View Post

I realize the formation of the earth is not in the GT per se. It is still assigned a geotime date, based on 4.5 billion years. The geologic timescale has many stories connected with it because of evolution. Certain strata are use to "prove" that at one point cyanobacteria caused the second atmosphere, the first atmosphere being formed by volcanoes. The dinosaurs have a story of life and extinction, and they are found in sediments, and rocks.

#297 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:54 AM

Actually you do seem unclear about the geologic time scale as hsown in this discussion. The geologic time scale doesn't really address what you talk about here. It really addresses the study of stratified rocks to time. What you cite here are not the first tenants of the geologic time scale, regardless of what you consider ridiculous.

View Post


If the there were only one possible way time could pass. then your argument would be the only answer. God can create live matter (Adam and Eve) with age, why not dead matter (planets, stars, the whole universe) with age as well?

Claiming that God would be using a deception doing that, only shows that other factors besides those that support evolution will be debunked this way which is not scientific. It's basically conformism which is not scientific.

Question: How would a being create in a time-line were aging does not exist until man sins? Then explain how your version of events would work with current laws of physics?

1) Creating Adan and Eve as infants that never grow up, would be a bad creation.
2) Creating new planets that are not cooled off and would burn up any created life on them is a bad creation.
3) Creating a star that is young and unstable would destroy all life on this planet.

It's like when you guys find living fossils. Ever wonder why they are never found in the in-between layers (from the layer you find them and all the layers until present)? It's because the sorting from the flood separates them, not time and evolution.

Posted Image

Example is where you see the fish in the pic above. The colecanth is alive why is it not in the layers above that as well showing that it did not change. Because time and evolution did not make the column.

#298 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 April 2011 - 12:34 PM

Posted Image

...I think the Exhumed River Bed at Cedar Mountain Formation is an interesting and unusual feature that should cause anyone to scratch their heads. After all, it is an unusual feature. In discussing it however, and Assist24 alluded to the above mentioned condition, the uniformitarianistic geologists have a tendency to assume that their highly detailed extrapolations can only be countered by more highly detailed extrapolations.
....

View Post

Indeed an unusual feature. And I'm wondering what the different erosion rates are. If the land around has eroded away already, the erosion rate ought to be quicker then the one of the riverbed sandstone. But the river-bed sandstone still erodes, just at a slower rate. It would be interesting to know that rate and then ask for how long this formation could have existed.

Perhaps it turns out to be an argument against long-age-uniformitarianism.

#299 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 April 2011 - 02:39 PM

Perhaps it turns out to be an argument against long-age-uniformitarianism.



It has been for decades. A geologist once said "The student has two choices; Accept the known rates of erosion and reject uniformitairianism or reject the rates and accept uniformitairianism."

All of the continents would be leveled in ~12 million years according to the known rates of erosion. In some places there is an alleged 10 million year unconformity with no evidence of any erosion.

Posted Image


http://www.evolution...findpost&p=6914



Thanks.

#300 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 01:11 PM

You're just going to have to stay frustrated because why should we limit ourselves to only those things that you approve? I think Ikester makes a good point and as far as Creationwiki being biased... uh... hello... Creation... Wiki :P

The problem with Wikipedia is that it purports to be neutral when it's not.

View Post


Amen to that!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users