RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence for Young Earth.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 10:56:08 AM
|
|
|
tsnody2001
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/29/2008
From: Terre Haute, IN
Status: offline
|
I've also seen pictures a fossilized cowboy boot with the foot fossilized inside of it. Tell me that took millions of years. I've also seen pictures of a piece of coal broken open with a spark plug inside. It does not take millions of years, just the right conditions.
_____________________________
"Saving faith shuts my mouth and excludes boasting, but it leads me to boast in Christ.... Saving faith is not dependant upon my obedience, but obedience is the hallmark of the man or woman filled with the Spirit." -- Sinclair Ferguson --
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 11:47:57 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
When I think of evidence for a young earth, I think of the rock layers all stacked on each other without evidence of erosion, much like the Mt. St. Helens layers that we know were formed quickly.
Although these layers (ash layers? not limestone, I imagine) at Mt. St. Helens formed quickly, YEC requires that all strata everywhere formed quickly. But measured varve sedimentation rates are more on the order of 1mm/year.
quote:
Where's the evidence for a flood? You're looking at it when you look at Grand Canyon. It's layers formed by the Flood. Of course, that doesn't prove that the earth is young, it simply demonstrates that the hypothesis of Flood Geology should not be rejected.
I agree that the existence of a Flood does not itself determine anything about the age of the earth. But I can see how if the Flood layed down sediment at tremendous rates, this would explain why measured varve sedimentation rates are irrelevant to the total age of the earth. You contend (essentially) that 99% of all the layers were created by a single event.
If so, how did the flood lay down distinct layers of different minerals? For instance, how did it lay down limestone, then sandstone, then more limestone? They are not ordered by density, and the same mineral can appear in many different layers. The recent pictures from the Mississippi seem to show that floods lay down undifferentiated brown mud.
How did the Flood sort fossils (or animals, rather) so that trilobites are not found with reptiles? How did the Flood lay down the lower levels at a distinct angle to the upper layers if this was all part of one event? How did intrusions of lava appear and flow over multiple exposed layers if everything happened at once?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 11:57:29 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
Where's the evidence for a flood? You're looking at it when you look at Grand Canyon. It's layers formed by the Flood. Of course, that doesn't prove that the earth is young, it simply demonstrates that the hypothesis of Flood Geology should not be rejected.
The Grand Canyon may seem large on a human scale, but on a global scale it's tiny. If the Grand Canyon is supposed to be evidence of the Noadic Flood, it should be a global effect. Yet it doesn't cover one continent - It doesn't even cover the state of Arizona. If we are to suppose the Grand Canyon was caused by the Noadic Flood (which is doubtful), it was a local flood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 12:44:28 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Fossilization does take time. You are confusing burial with fossilization. In fact fossilization often requires rapid burial in material that seals off the body from decay. But fossilization is not identical with burial. Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material. A fossil bone is not made of bone. It is made of rock. A fossil tree is not made of wood; it is made of rock. Molecule by molecule the organic material is slowly replaced by mineral material. That does take time, even after rapid burial.
Regardless, fossils have been found that appear to have taken much less time than expected, such as the examples tsnody2001 stated.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 12:51:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the Grand Canyon is supposed to be evidence of the Noadic Flood, it should be a global effect.
The Grand Canyon does not prove a global flood. It simply proves there are other possible (perhaps more likely) explanations as to how the Grand Canyon, and other landmarks of this such, were formed, and I am not obliged to be brainwashed by the typical "millions and billions of years" bologna. To believe the earth survived a billion years of chaotic possibilities seems a bit foolish to me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 12:55:21 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tsnody2001
I agree with you last post, gluadys. Fossilization does take time, but millions of years? Do you understand (everyone, not just gluadys) that if this world were millions of years old, the fossils we find now would have been destroyed long ago, since the magma under the earth's crust is recycled by erupting volcanoes? When a volcanoe erupts, it is essentially spewing up molten lava that has recently been turned to the same. Take the gravitational force of the earth and moon. That force is weakening and the moon is slowly drifting away at a steady, observable rate. ASSUMING (I admit that have to assume here) that this rate has been steady and has not increased or decreased significantly, just 500,000 years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth, it would have brought the Atlantic tide in to somewhere around Chicago. 1 million years ago the earth would have spinning so fast, dinosaurs would be close to just flying off into space unwillingly. Add onto that the steadily decreasing magnetic field of the sun, which is the cause of the decreasing gravitational force between the earth and the moon. And the temperature of the sun is steadily decreasing. At this rate, 1 million years ago the sun would have been too hot to support life of any kind on earth. Common sense says that when you walk into a room and see a cup of steaming coffee, you know the coffee was placed there recently. Or if you come across a burning candle, you know just by the fact that is still burning that it was recently placed there.
Thanks for the honest responses to this thread.
The figures I have seen is that the moon is receding at about 3.8 centimeters per year. Over 500,000 years, that amounts to about 11 miles. Given that the moon is some 240,000 miles from the earth, center to center, that is insignificant.
Also, we have good reason to believe that the moon hasnt always receded at the same rate. There is an extremely complicated interplay between the ocean, plate tectonics, the rotation of the moon and earth that all significantly effect the earths spin and the moons orbit. The continets also affect the tides, and the amount of drag that the moon can put onto the earths rotation. If the continents were arranged... say as one giant supercontinent (as they were billions of years ago), and the rest of the earth was covered with water, there would be less friction to slow the earths spin, meaning the moon would not recede as fast.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 12:56:00 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tsnody2001
I agree with you last post, gluadys. Fossilization does take time, but millions of years? Do you understand (everyone, not just gluadys) that if this world were millions of years old, the fossils we find now would have been destroyed long ago, since the magma under the earth's crust is recycled by erupting volcanoes? When a volcanoe erupts, it is essentially spewing up molten lava that has recently been turned to the same.
Although some crust does get recycled in this way, it is not enough to have recycled all the continent.
quote:
Take the gravitational force of the earth and moon. That force is weakening and the moon is slowly drifting away at a steady, observable rate. ASSUMING (I admit that have to assume here) that this rate has been steady and has not increased or decreased significantly, just 500,000 years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth, it would have brought the Atlantic tide in to somewhere around Chicago.
This is not true. The force of gravity is not weakening. Although the moon is receding due to tidal friction (which slows the earth), it is doing so at a measured rate of 3.8 cm/year. Assuming a constant rate, 500,000 years ago, it was 20km closer, a difference of much less than 1%.
quote:
1 million years ago the earth would have spinning so fast, dinosaurs would be close to just flying off into space unwillingly.
This also is not true for the same reason, since the recession of the moon is linked to the slowing of the earth.
quote:
Add onto that the steadily decreasing magnetic field of the sun, which is the cause of the decreasing gravitational force between the earth and the moon.
This is not true. Magnetic fields have no effect on gravity. I wish they did, because then we could build antigravity machines.
quote:
And the temperature of the sun is steadily decreasing. At this rate, 1 million years ago the sun would have been too hot to support life of any kind on earth.
Can you present evidence that the temperature of the sun is steadily decreasing?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:01:13 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If the Grand Canyon is supposed to be evidence of the Noadic Flood, it should be a global effect.
The Grand Canyon does not prove a global flood. It simply proves there are other possible (perhaps more likely) explanations as to how the Grand Canyon, and other landmarks of this such, were formed, and I am not obliged to be brainwashed by the typical "millions and billions of years" bologna. To believe the earth survived a billion years of chaotic possibilities seems a bit foolish to me.
Fortunately, humans and scientists have been able to study firsthand the effects of myriads of different kinds of floods, and what they do to geology. Do you have any particular studies or references that you can cite that show canyon like structures being formed from large scale floods?
< Message edited by drj11 -- 6/22/2008 1:07:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:15:52 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
...canyon like structures being formed from large scale floods?
Let me ask you a question...is this not possible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:19:12 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
...canyon like structures being formed from large scale floods?
Let me ask you a question...is this not possible?
Given what we know about large scale floods, no, it wouldn't be possible to form the grand canyon (or a canyon like it) with a flood, especially not in 40 days.
It does however, fit the pattern for slow erosion of time, from steady flowing water.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:25:39 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Given what we know about large scale floods, no, it wouldn't be possible to form the grand canyon (or a canyon like it) with a flood, especially not in 40 days.
Show me an experiment where a flood of Biblical proportion has been witnessed and studied to somehow prove it could NOT form the Grand Canyon. You can't. All we know is that with the proper conditions, what once was thought to have required massive amounts of time now have alternate possibilities that don't require that amount of time. Two examples include fossils and sediment layers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:28:23 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2454
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
My old Young Earth thread pretty much went unanswered, but I will give this another go. It has been asserted again and again there is evidence for young earth creationism in thread after thread on this forum. Here's your chance (again), to make your case....
Here are a few ground rules, just to make sure we get a quality discussion:
Present the absolute best scientific evidence you know of that supports 6 day creation (or some variant of YEC). You have slam dunk evidence of a young earth? Show it here.
Please be able to expound upon and discuss any evidence you preset... no deluge of factoids from a lengthy copied and pasted list. If you want to use info from such a list, fine, but just pick one or two arguments that you feel are the absolute best and be prepared to support and discuss them.
This is about science, not theology/philosophy. Present objective scientific evidence. Even the most religious among us should realize that Bible quotes aren’t considered scientific evidence. Lets keep it objective and scientific.
Greetings
From what I heard there are undisturbed layers of Earth that have recently been discovered that have intact fossils of things million of years old according to evolution and human foot prints in the same level area.
One would think in a land mass shift that if a level was pushed up to the top, it would have least destroyed the continuity of the other layer including itself.
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 1:30:42 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Given what we know about large scale floods
This is funny, because given the context of the debate (the global flood) we know nothing about a global flood. Science has not studied anything close to a global flood, so how could you say this drj11? You have no idea what could have happened when the earth was covered with water. So to say definitively that it would be impossible for a global flood to form the Grand Canyon by stating we "know about large scale floods" is, with all due respect, a bit cozening.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 3:30:19 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tsnody2001
I agree with you last post, gluadys. Fossilization does take time, but millions of years? Do you understand (everyone, not just gluadys) that if this world were millions of years old, the fossils we find now would have been destroyed long ago, since the magma under the earth's crust is recycled by erupting volcanoes? When a volcanoe erupts, it is essentially spewing up molten lava that has recently been turned to the same.
True. But most volcanoes are found along tectonic fault lines. There are other areas of the earth where continental rock has remained undisturbed (more or less) for over 3 billion years.
btw, it is true that geological events like volcanoes and earthquakes and the sheer pressure of accumulating sediment do destroy fossils---another reason that fossils are rare.
quote:
Take the gravitational force of the earth and moon. That force is weakening and the moon is slowly drifting away at a steady, observable rate. ASSUMING (I admit that have to assume here) that this rate has been steady and has not increased or decreased significantly, just 500,000 years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth, it would have brought the Atlantic tide in to somewhere around Chicago. 1 million years ago the earth would have spinning so fast, dinosaurs would be close to just flying off into space unwillingly.
The basic concept is correct. The moon is drifting slowly away from the earth. But your figures are incorrect. And your cause. The gravitational force is not weakening as such. It is a matter of angular rotation and a transference of energy. Tidal forces are involved. I've seen it explained, though being a math dunce, I don't understand it all myself.
In any case:
1) No, the rate is not steady. It is currently faster than average and it is thought the current configuration of the continents may be a factor in this. Apparently the rate of retreat was slower when all the continents were gathered into the supercontinent of Pangaea.
2) Even the current rate is nowhere near as fast as you suggest. On one of the moon landings, mirrors were installed on the moon that allow for a precise measurement of the distance between the earth and the moon, so scientists can follow this phenomenon with great exactitude.
3) The earth was spinning more rapidly in the past, but never as fast as you suggest. Many plants and animals have circadian (daily) cycles, and a few of these can be traced in fossils such as coral. Fossils from about 300 million years ago (not just one million) indicate a period of axial rotation of about 22 instead of 24 hours. And no indication of anything flying off the surface of the earth.
quote:
Add onto that the steadily decreasing magnetic field of the sun, which is the cause of the decreasing gravitational force between the earth and the moon. And the temperature of the sun is steadily decreasing. At this rate, 1 million years ago the sun would have been too hot to support life of any kind on earth. Common sense says that when you walk into a room and see a cup of steaming coffee, you know the coffee was placed there recently. Or if you come across a burning candle, you know just by the fact that is still burning that it was recently placed there.
I don't know where you are getting your figures from, but you had best stop listening to such a shoddy source of information. The main sequence of a star is well known to astronomers and a study of the sun shows that its life-cycle is probably about 10 billion years and it is currently about half-way through its main sequence. So the sun has been around for about 5 billion years and will be with us for another 5 billion years. And, in fact, by the standards of the galaxy as a whole, that is recent.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 3:35:01 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1956
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Given what we know about large scale floods
This is funny, because given the context of the debate (the global flood) we know nothing about a global flood. Science has not studied anything close to a global flood, so how could you say this drj11? You have no idea what could have happened when the earth was covered with water. So to say definitively that it would be impossible for a global flood to form the Grand Canyon by stating we "know about large scale floods" is, with all due respect, a bit cozening.
Oh come on. Because we haven't experienced a global flood, can we not assume that sediment layers would be ordered by density? Can we not look at what conditions are required for certain types of rock to form and compare that to conditions which would be found during such a large flood?
Will we know all of the fine details? No, probably not. Do we know enough to make some general predictions? Yes.
quote:
If so, how did the flood lay down distinct layers of different minerals? For instance, how did it lay down limestone, then sandstone, then more limestone? They are not ordered by density, and the same mineral can appear in many different layers. The recent pictures from the Mississippi seem to show that floods lay down undifferentiated brown mud.
How did the Flood sort fossils (or animals, rather) so that trilobites are not found with reptiles? How did the Flood lay down the lower levels at a distinct angle to the upper layers if this was all part of one event? How did intrusions of lava appear and flow over multiple exposed layers if everything happened at once?
And how did burrowing creatures survive and burrow in these sediments as they were being laid down? http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 3:41:06 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Fossilization does take time. You are confusing burial with fossilization. In fact fossilization often requires rapid burial in material that seals off the body from decay. But fossilization is not identical with burial. Fossilization is the gradual replacement of the organic material with mineral material. A fossil bone is not made of bone. It is made of rock. A fossil tree is not made of wood; it is made of rock. Molecule by molecule the organic material is slowly replaced by mineral material. That does take time, even after rapid burial.
Regardless, fossils have been found that appear to have taken much less time than expected, such as the examples tsnody2001 stated.
Have they been fully mineralized? A buried mammoth is called a fossil even if its bones are not fully mineralized. I understand that in some instances it has been possible to extract DNA from Neanderthal fossils. This would not be possible if they were fully mineralized. Such examples show that full mineralization can take tens of thousands of years.
That is a lot less than millions of years, but it is not a rapid process either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 4:29:05 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Given what we know about large scale floods, no, it wouldn't be possible to form the grand canyon (or a canyon like it) with a flood, especially not in 40 days.
Show me an experiment where a flood of Biblical proportion has been witnessed and studied to somehow prove it could NOT form the Grand Canyon. You can't. All we know is that with the proper conditions, what once was thought to have required massive amounts of time now have alternate possibilities that don't require that amount of time. Two examples include fossils and sediment layers.
We know the Grand Canyon is consistent with what we know about slow erosion. We also know it is not consistent with what we know about large-scale flooding. And yet, you want us to suppose the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood. Show us an experiment where a flood of any proportions that has been witnessed and studied and the effects are consistent with the Grand Canyon. If you can't, tell us why anyone would suppose the Grand Canyon is the result of a flood when the evidence points to formation by erosion.
< Message edited by Veritas -- 6/22/2008 4:35:35 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 6:31:46 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Given what we know about large scale floods
This is funny, because given the context of the debate (the global flood) we know nothing about a global flood. Science has not studied anything close to a global flood, so how could you say this drj11? You have no idea what could have happened when the earth was covered with water. So to say definitively that it would be impossible for a global flood to form the Grand Canyon by stating we "know about large scale floods" is, with all due respect, a bit cozening.
Given what we know about simple geometry, a global flood is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 6:39:05 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Spoken like a die-hard naturalist!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 6:56:27 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
1 million years ago the earth would have spinning so fast, dinosaurs would be close to just flying off into space unwillingly.
The current escape velocity of the earth is 7 miles per second.
The current linear velocity of the earth at the equator is (circumference / 24 * miles per hour / 60 min / 60 sec) just 0.28 miles per second.
Assuming a the same mass of the earth, the earth would need to spin 25 times faster for objects to fly off the planet if they are located at the equator. If that did happen in the past, then the ejected mass would have lowered the mass of the earth and lowered the escape velocity by a marginal amount.
A spinning object that loses mass also changes angular momentum, but the two masses conserve angular momentum; though the math is too messy to follow to... It is speculated that the moon actually was a compositional mass of the earth that was once ejected; imagine a rotating water balloon. Anyway there is definitely not a simple relationship between current rotational rates and historical rotational rates of the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 6:59:36 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Spoken like a die-hard naturalist!
I'm saying that a simultaneous global flood where every inch of the planet is covered in enough of water to drown people
1. either completely mythical
2. requires a very spherical planet
3. or completely supernatural and beyond our ability to understand
Do some of the math and come back to me later.
let me give you a start. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * Pi * R^3
< Message edited by swan42 -- 6/22/2008 7:06:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 7:52:59 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
2. requires a very spherical planet
quote:
Who's to say the height of mountains that exist now has never changed? Don't you think a global flood would be capable of altering land masses?
True and True; but
The height of mountains have changed.. over millions of years.
a global flood would tend to make land masses more flat and not more bumpy.
Go away and figure out how much water it takes to cover the earth, as it was geologically 4500 years ago for 40 days.. that's the purpose of this thread, to come up with the evidence for this sort of thing.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 6/22/2008 8:00:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 8:34:16 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 500
Status: offline
|
quote:
Go away and figure out how much water it takes to cover the earth, as it was geologically 4500 years ago for 40 days.. that's the purpose of this thread, to come up with the evidence for this sort of thing.
This is impossible since the height of certain mountains now may not have been the same 4500 years ago! See below.
quote:
a global flood would tend to make land masses more flat and not more bumpy.
This assumes the water currents during the flood all flowed the same way at all times until the waters receded. A global flood would have caused hurricanes, tsunamis, landslides, opposing water currents, etc, that would in turn created landmasses not so flat. A global flood has been theorized (and is very likely had the Noahic flood occurred) to be a tool in the moving of tectonic plates, creating mountains (such as Everest?) that did not exist before the flood. The Bible also records volcanoes erupting during the flood, which would change the topography of this planet. So "crunching the numbers" is IMPOSSIBLE because the topography observed NOW would not be the same had a global flood occurred. The amount of water required to flood the entire earth NOW would not be the same amount required before the flood, so it would be disingenuous for me to state "# cubic feet was required to flood the earth 4500 years ago." It would be a lie. I you want to know the answer to your question, be my guest! Is there a reason someone else must do the math? Are you a bit "lacking" in mathematics swan42?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Creationist Challenge: Present scientific evidence... - 6/22/2008 9:07:04 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1956
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Show us an experiment where a flood of any proportions that has been witnessed and studied and the effects are consistent with the Grand Canyon.
Many have asked this, and I found a couple.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/421
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/237
The claim is that these canyons are analogous to the Grand Canyon, but that is not correct. The geology of the Grand Canyon is such that that canyon cuts through many different layers of rock to a depth of over a mile, however the examples you provided are cut through ~150 feet of loose clay and unconsolidated sandstone.
Nobody argues that rushing water can't cut a gully through 50m of soil in a short amount of time. What we argue is that the details of the Grand Canyon - the particular layers, the order in which they appear, and the features found in them can't have been formed at the same time and that the particular patterns of erosion can't have all happened within a short amount of time (geologists do believe, however, that certain portions of the canyon may have been cut quickly).
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
