Jump to content


Photo

Geology Problems For Young Earth Creationists?


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

#141 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:44 PM



Sadly, I did:  "I don't understand this and can't explain it, so you must not be able to either."  :(

So go ahead, make your funny little jokes about sandboxes and chipmunks.  All your buddies here will laugh and slap you on the back, and you'll feel good about yourself for another day.  Then tomorrow when you wake up you'll be just as ignorant, and just as sad.  And the geologic evidence like the Powder River incised meanders carved through 800' of solid basalt will still be there, bearing silent witness to your intellectual self-deception and inability to deal with reality.

I'll leave you with this question still unanswered:

[b]If you know for a fact that you don't fully understand a topic (like geology, for example), isn't it possible that it's your lack of understanding that makes the OE position seem irrational, and not the actual position itself?

View Post

Huh??? You don't even know my understanding of geology, I do. I am quite comfortable with my increased knowledge of geology. No it isn't my lack of understanding of the geology of some areas, it is the lack of geologist as a wholes undersanding of some areas that I too do not understand. If they don't understand it, then how am I supposed to understand it??? Except give you what I think may have happened, which is what most geologist would do.

During the Flood the basalt was most likely not solid. Actually a Flood model of some type would most likely be the only explanation for this, because millions upon bagillions of years of errosion would most likely be the other option... that or chipmunks.

Basalt is the most common rock on planet earth. It is an igneous rock, which means that at the time of it's formation that it was molten lava. Now we must ask ourselves the question: Can large amounts of Flood Waters cut through molten lava??? Offcourse they can, and thats most likely what happened.

#142 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:48 PM

If you know for a fact that you don't fully understand a topic (like geology, for example), isn't it possible that it's your lack of understanding that makes the OE position seem irrational, and not the actual position itself?

View Post


Assist24,

What you aren't going to fool people here with is ad hoc interpretations. We look at something like the exhumed river bed and say; "You know there is strong evidence all over the world for a catastrophic worldwide flood but I'm not sure how this feature was made..."

Then a "trump card mentality" geologist says; "I know exactly how it happened. Millions of years ago..." :(

I think Scott said it best. You have nothing to test and demonstrate because it takes millions of years. The time god to the rescue.

Did you watch that video? It's really cool. It kind of shows the scientism hubris that you're embracing as conclusive, while it isn't.

#143 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:49 PM

In order to even conceptualize a proper Grand Canyon model, speleological factors must be included. Within so much sediment, water is going to flow.

What did I find when I searched to find out what kind of results we get?
Posted Image

http://www.culture.g...x/en/visite.htm

See the right side of the map? Crooked, then straight.

Either rudimentary caves or channels at the surface following cave-ins would be present, prior to the event(s) that carved the canyon we see today.

View Post

Great. So to discuss how canyons in Utah and Oregon formed immediately after the Flood, we get to look at a map of some intact limestone caves on the other side of the world. :(

Got a mechanism for how 180 deg. switchback meandering caves formed in the fresh soft Flood laid sediments? How about the meandering caves that were laid in the molten lava of the Columbia Basalt fields?

#144 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 17 March 2009 - 08:50 PM

Great.  So to discuss how canyons in Utah and Oregon formed immediately after the Flood

View Post

Why immediately? Haven't we taught you anything yet?

#145 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 17 March 2009 - 09:00 PM

Why immediately? Haven't we taught you anything yet?

View Post

So tell me when they did form, and how you determined the date. I've only been asking you for a week.

Or is this one more of those "I don't know, so whatever anyone else says must be wrong." cases. :(

BTW, have you come up with that Flood model for the switchback meanders yet?

You say a giant Flood formed lake burst sometime post-Flood.

CTD says underground caves collapsed.

Scott says the Flood waters carved then directly through molten lava.

Byers says Flood created vortexes caused them.

All four of you can't be right, so, which is the real Flood model?

#146 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 17 March 2009 - 09:05 PM

So tell me when they did form, and how you determined the date.  I've only been asking you for a week.

Or is this one more of those "I don't know, so whatever anyone else says must be wrong." cases.  :(

View Post


Do we need to know the date??? Does anyone know the date???? Or do you truly believe that radiocarbon dating will save the day, because it knows the dates of all who seek dates of all time.

No man knows the date, unless someone took notes from the day the place was formed, and has pictures for everyone to enjoy.

Ooohhh I'll take a stab at the meandering... Maybe the water was blocked by some unkown force... that we shall call ( unkown force ). This unkown force somehow pointed toward the water, and said... thou shalt meander!!!!

Actually, on that one I'd say I don't know. Why? Because sometimes we just cannot predict which way water wants to go.

#147 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 17 March 2009 - 09:18 PM

So tell me when they did form, and how you determined the date.  I've only been asking you for a week.

Or is this one more of those "I don't know, so whatever anyone else says must be wrong." cases.  :(

View Post

Why is nailing down a perfect time line necessary? Why can't we say that we don't know? Just because current geology has pseudoscience methods for dating things doesn't mean that we have to commit to an alternative to compete.

Why can't we just be honest and say it truly is a mystery and the best any of us can do is guess? Does that admission somehow invalidate all the other useful observations that have been made on this thread?

I believe the Bible gives the right date for the flood but I can't produce physical evidence that's more conclusive than an eye witness testimony. There are no rocks stamped "Dislodged from the great deep Nov. 23, 2458 B.C."

You know what I mean?

There is a false dichotomy that I've heard evolutionists offer one too many times to show a lack of critical thinking. It goes like this:

"All you creationists do is say you have reasons why you believe evolution isn't true but why should we trust you because you aren't offering an alternative?"

You've heard it. I've heard it.

(first, I think this is bogus anyway but let's just assume it's true for a moment.)

Question:

Is an alternative necessary in order to show an other idea is incorrect?

Example:

A person is suspected of murder. His lawyer investigates the murder suspect's alibi and discovers that the alibi is rock solid and irrefutable. Question: Does the lawyer have to discover the real murderer before he can use the evidence to prove his clients innocence?

#148 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 17 March 2009 - 09:39 PM

You say a giant Flood formed lake burst sometime post-Flood.

CTD says underground caves collapsed.

Scott says the Flood waters carved then directly through molten lava.

Byers says Flood created vortexes caused them.

All four of you can't be right, so, which is the real Flood model?

View Post

:blink: None of these ideas contradict each other. :blink: All of them could have been working together or even at different stages. :(

Would you like to retract your very poor attempt at trying to show contradictions?

For the record I'm not sure about the carving through molten lava bit. Scott may want to address that assertion.

#149 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:14 PM

I believe the Bible gives the right date for the flood but I can't produce physical evidence that's more conclusive than an eye witness testimony.

What chapter and verse in the Bible gives the right date for the Flood? What is that right date?

There is a false dichotomy that I've heard evolutionists offer one too many times to show a lack of critical thinking. It goes like this:

"All you creationists do is say you have reasons why you believe evolution isn't true but why should we trust you because you aren't offering an alternative?"

You've heard it. I've heard it.

(first, I think this is bogus anyway but let's just assume it's true for a moment.)

Question:

Is an alternative necessary in order to show an other idea is incorrect?

Example:

A person is suspected of murder. His lawyer investigates the murder suspect's alibi and discovers that the alibi is rock solid and irrefutable. Question: Does the lawyer have to discover the real murderer before he can use the evidence to prove his clients innocence?

That's a great analogy, but not for the reasons you think.

The police are not trying to establish who didn't do it. They are trying to find evidence of who did do it.

All the YEs have done is say "The current OE explanation didn't do it." But that does not provide any evidence at all that a 4500 year old mega-Flood did do it.

It's possible that the currently establish date and mechanism for the Goosenecks may be totally wrong. Maybe a big earthquake caused it 10 MYO, maybe a freak desert tornado carved it 5MYO, maybe giant space aliens dropped their kid off to play 1 MYO and he carved it with his shovel and pail. None of those possibilities are excluded if the current explanation goes out the door.

For the sake of argument, suppose tomorrow all current scientific knowledge about the geologic history of the Earth is shown to be wrong. What scientific knowledge do we replace it with? Putting "it's not important to know the real details so we'll just guess" isn't going to look very good in a science textbook.

Elimination of the current OE explanation is not evidence to support the Biblical YE one.

THAT is the point you can't seem to grasp, that I've been hammering on since day 1. That is why I keep asking for your YE model with some supporting evidence, not one more round of "the OE explanation is wrong!!".

If you don't have any evidence, if you can't provide dates or a mechanism, FINE. Just say "I don't know" and everyone will live happily ever after. But as long as organizations like AIG, ICR and Walt Brown continue to base their entire arguments on "the OE explanation is wrong!!" the YE case will get absolutely nowhere.

#150 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 17 March 2009 - 10:22 PM

:blink: None of these ideas contradict each other. :blink: All of them could have been working together or even at different stages. :( 

Would you like to retract your very poor attempt at trying to show contradictions?

For the record I'm not sure about the carving through molten lava bit. Scott may want to address that assertion.

All four of those are the very definition of ad hoc. Made up on the spot. Pulled straight out of the nether regions without one scrap of actual evidence. (Sorry, nothing personal but "I've never studied geology however this satellite photo seems like it to me" doesn't pass muster as scientific evidence.)

None of them form, taken separately or together, part of a cohesive model.

Is there any more point in pretending that a coherent YE geologic model even exists?

ETA: Thanks for taking off that 5 minute "flood control" thing. It was really irritating. ;)

#151 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 18 March 2009 - 12:48 AM

What chapter and verse in the Bible gives the right date for the Flood?  What is that right date?

The genealogies date it to about 1500 years after creation; that works out to around 2400BC

All the YEs have done is say "The current OE explanation didn't do it."  But that does not provide any evidence at all that a 4500 year old mega-Flood did do it.


You deliberately ignore all the evidence for the flood, apparently on the basis that we don't know the cause of one particular feature.

The primary evidence is the record of the people who were there, Noah and his sons. A myriad of geological features are consistent with their account. When there are features whose formation we don't understand, we can be confident that they nevertheless formed within the time available.

For the sake of argument, suppose tomorrow all current scientific knowledge about the geologic history of the Earth is shown to be wrong.  What scientific knowledge do we replace it with?  Putting "it's not important to know the real details so we'll just guess" isn't going to look very good in a science textbook.

Elimination of the current OE explanation is not evidence to support the Biblical YE one.

THAT is the point you can't seem to grasp, that I've been hammering on since day 1.  That is why I keep asking for your YE model with some supporting evidence, not one more round of "the OE explanation is wrong!!".


So the idea of long ages and evolution should never have replaced creationism in the first place, because people didn't 150 years ago, and do not now, have any idea of how life actually came into being. We keep on asking for some supporting evidence and all we get is fanciful stories with all the important detail missing.

If a theory is plainly contradicted by multiple lines of evidence it must be wrong and should be thrown out. But the long age, evolutionary, theory is never thrown out because the alternative requires that you acknowledge God.

Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, S@xual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers,  backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Romans 1:28-32



If you don't have any evidence, if you can't provide dates or a mechanism, FINE.  Just say "I don't know" and everyone will live happily ever after.  But as long as organizations like AIG, ICR and Walt Brown continue to base their entire arguments on "the OE explanation is wrong!!" the YE case will get absolutely nowhere.

View Post


Ironically, Walt Brown offers to debate but refuses to allow religious arguments in the debate. He insists on arguing on physical evidence only, but no one will take him up.

#152 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:32 AM

What chapter and verse in the Bible gives the right date for the Flood?  What is that right date?

View Post

I just knew you were going to say that. Your true identity as someone who likes word games and not serious dialogue is starting to become obvious. :(

That's a great analogy, but not for the reasons you think.

View Post

Oh, that analogy doesn't work for the reason I think? :blink: You're actually proving my point. Thanks, Assist24. :blink:

#153 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:38 AM

For the sake of argument, suppose tomorrow all current scientific knowledge about the geologic history of the Earth is shown to be wrong.  What scientific knowledge do we replace it with?  Putting "it's not important to know the real details so we'll just guess" isn't going to look very good in a science textbook.

View Post

This is the kind of sad response that I hope others see for what it is.

"You can't touch our lies until you have something to replace them with."

Assist24, lies and speculations are lies and speculations whether there is a replacement or not. Maybe, in science class we should just teach science and not worry about origins at all. If philosophical naturalism needs protected from creationists by limiting information then something tells me that there is something dishonest going on regarding origins in the science classroom.

#154 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 02:47 AM

All four of those are the very definition of ad hoc.  Made up on the spot.

View Post

You ought to look up definitions before missusing them. See Assist24, we can admit that there is some uncertain speculation involved. We can admit that our beliefs are evidence based, historically based, and also religious. Can philosophical naturalists admit that their beliefs are religiously motivated?

The difference between us is philosophical naturalists don't want the competition because it may expose the very nature of their own ideas as pure dreams with little substance. Yup, not only do we look at the physical evidence but we also use the most reliable history book this world knows hands down. We're just following the evidence where it leads. As for the particulars, yes there is some speculation being used and it's admitted. It's also some very good evidence based speculation.

How many reams of paperwork and formulas does it take to make the unrealistic OE ad hoc speculations fact? How many years of fad acceptance qualifies the billions of years march for scrutiny free status?

#155 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 03:30 AM

Ironically, Walt Brown offers to debate but refuses to allow religious arguments in the debate.  He insists on arguing on physical evidence only, but no one will take him up.

View Post

Don't you know the debate is over? :(

#156 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 March 2009 - 03:48 AM

All four of those are the very definition of ad hoc.  Made up on the spot.  Pulled straight out of the nether regions without one scrap of actual evidence.  (Sorry, nothing personal but "I've never studied geology however this satellite photo seems like it to me" doesn't pass muster as scientific evidence.)

None of them form, taken separately or together, part of a cohesive model.

Is there any more point in pretending that a coherent YE geologic model even exists?

ETA: Thanks for taking off that 5 minute "flood control" thing.  It was really irritating.  :(

View Post

The above post fits the very definition of a lie.

I haven't offered any model at all. Adam is thinking of investigating, and I have suggested things that need to be taken into consideration.

Every time we talk of the goosenecks, you pretend it's the Grand Canyon itself. Every time we talk about the Grand Canyon, you pretend it's the goosenecks. If you wanted to see what creation scientists say about the Grand Canyon, it's available and you know it. If you wanted to discuss the goosenecks, you'd quit your nonsense. Your behaviour is consistent with one who wants to discuss nothing, and it's inconsistent with one who wants to meaningfully discuss anything.

You have continually misportrayed things throughout this thread, and you want to whine and moan about not getting what you ask for on demand? Boo hoo!

You know what? I haven't been trying to tell you what happened. You are not the topic of this thread. My participation has been for the benefit of those who honestly took part in this discussion, pretty much exclusively.

#157 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:18 AM

Let's switch this up a little and look at the exhumed river bed:

Posted Image

I have some initial questions about this feature.

What makes geologists so sure that this is a river bed? Is it just the shape?

Do rivers have some kind of transformational power on the rocks and soil below it to make them harder and more resilient to erosion? The last time I checked a river with a washed out bank will erode it's own basin if it gets a chance. So what is the deal with this feature?

Let's find out what kind of information is available on this feature. I still haven't found its exact location but I'm looking.

#158 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:37 AM

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

Attached File  overview.jpg   172.6KB   13 downloadsAttached File  Birds_eye.jpg   210.78KB   13 downloads

#159 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:41 AM

I haven't offered any model at all.

That's right, no one has.

Every time we talk of the goosenecks, you pretend it's the Grand Canyon itself.

The above statement fits the very definition of a lie.

Every time we talk about the Grand Canyon, you pretend it's the goosenecks.

The above statement fits the very definition of a lie.

If you wanted to see what creation scientists say about the Grand Canyon, it's available and you know it.

Of course it is, and I even linked to it and provided excerpts. But I never asked about the GC, I asked about the San Juan, Green, upper Colorado, and Powder River incised meanders.

If you wanted to discuss the goosenecks, you'd quit your nonsense. Your behaviour is consistent with one who wants to discuss nothing, and it's inconsistent with one who wants to meaningfully discuss anything.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the GC, not me.

You have continually misportrayed things throughout this thread, and you want to whine and moan about not getting what you ask for on demand? Boo hoo!

:( :blink: :blink:

You know what? I haven't been trying to tell you what happened. You are not the topic of this thread. My participation has been for the benefit of those who honestly took part in this discussion, pretty much exclusively.

Preach unsubstantiated nonsense and ignore all questions and criticism you mean. Have to admit you are pretty good at it. At least Adam777 has the moxie to think originally and respond.

#160 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 March 2009 - 07:46 AM

Let's switch this up a little and look at the exhumed river bed:

Posted Image

I have some initial questions about this feature.

What makes geologists so sure that this is a river bed? Is it just the shape?

Do rivers have some kind of transformational power on the rocks and soil below it to make them harder and more resilient to erosion? The last time I checked a river with a washed out bank will erode it's own basin if it gets a chance. So what is the deal with this feature?

Let's find out what kind of information is available on this feature. I still haven't found its exact location but I'm looking.

View Post



It may be an exumed river bed. Let's say for instance, if the water was extremely hot, and the ground around the water was still soft enough to be moved, but not soft enough to be broken through. Ok, now the water that would be underground would most likely be filled with lots of hot steam, so the rising pressure from the hot steam would exume the soil around the underground river.

This is a possibilty, Why? Because, steam powered locamotives have even exploded under an extreme build up of pressure, which results in a very violent explosion, but in this case, the steam probably only built up enough to effect the ground around the river, but not fully explode.

Could this be the result of the Flood, Maybe, but it doesn't have to be unless a volcanoe of some sort was near by. Especially if an underground flow of magma was placed under the river, which would make the steam effect of the river possible.

YE's assume that most geologic features should support the idea of a Global Flood in some way or another, but that does not mean that every feature known to mankind has to be in accountance to the Flood.

Not all YE models or ideas are going to correlate, especially on Geological features. In some areas there will be different ideas to how things might have happened, this is basic geology. Do all OE models correlate...Everyone already knows that answer... NO. Not all geological formations correlate with each other and demanding that YE models all correlate makes no logical sense... period.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users