Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
BTW thanks for using your signature to popularise the Triceratops / Rhinoceros equivalence!!!!
…..an Indian Rhinoceros would be the nearest living relative of the Triceratops….you might consider adjusting your signature accordingly.:D
While I'm at it I should also get rid of the toy Triceratops too. I think I'll just hop in the time machine I made from my fig roll wrappers and go take a photo of real one.......
edit: I forgot I couldn't take my camera back in time (Terminator logic). Nevertheless it was a fun trip!!!!!
:pac::pac::pac::pac::eek::eek::eek::D:D:D:cool::rolleyes:
Sometimes I wonder if you are for real..[/b]……..NOBODY has successfully challenged either myself or Wolfsbane on ANY substantive point yet…..0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
......time machines made from fig roll wrappers.......Spontaneous Evolution seems almost logical in comparison!!!!!!!:DWhile I'm at it I should also get rid of the toy Triceratops too. I think I'll just hop in the time machine I made from my fig roll wrappers and go take a photo of real one.......
edit: I forgot I couldn't take my camera back in time (Terminator logic). Nevertheless it was a fun trip!!!!!
:pac::pac::pac::pac::eek::eek::eek::D:D:D:cool::rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm saying one should hold scientific hypotheses lightly, being open to the idea one may be mistaken.
As a scientist I'm well aware of that: you can go on about how great a theory is but if it can’t stand up to the evidence it must be let go, regardless of how attached you are to it. I’d be disappointed to see the back of the Big Bang for example, but if something better scientifically came along I would just have to accept that. Creationism does not stand up to the evidence.I'm sorry I can't engage directly with your geological arguments, or even assess how compelling they are. All I can do is point you to the articles by the Creationist geologists who may deal with the issues.
I admit my geological points are a bit technical but I hope that won't stop you and others from looking into geology more, if just to understand where I'm coming from. With my solid background in geology I can try to assess the creationist interpretation - can you say the same of where I'm coming from? Don't just go blindly accepting the creationist science without knowing the other side!Here's an example. You wrote:
The ice ages too: 6000 years isn't nearly long enough to account for all of them, considering what we know about how orbital cycles affect the climate. And let's not forget those ancient Huronian ice ages and the Proterozoic snowballs/slushballs...I did a search on creationontheweb.com and the first that took my eye was an on-line book, written at a popular level but seems to me to deal with some of the issues:Geologists have claimed that these features have been found in ancient rock layers, proving that there had been previous ice ages over geologic time. Many lines of evidence now indicate that the observations have been misinterpreted:3
Few geologists today would argue that there were no ice ages in the past. The authors of that book seem to paint a (wrong) picture of modern geology as taking an overly rigid uniformitarian approach – it’s obvious from many outcrops and formations that many of the processes happening today also operated in the past. If you’re interested, bear with me while I address a few points in that red text:
• The ‘tillites’ of lower rock layers are small in area, commonly thick,
and probably all of marine origin, whereas those of modern glaciers
are relatively large in area, thin and continental.
They say that because ancient tillites (glacial rocks) are marine, compared to continental tillites today, they can’t be from older ice ages. This doesn’t take into account that most of the continental mass today is concentrated in the northern hemisphere so we would expect to see continental tillites – different continental configurations existed in the past. Continental deposits are also thinner because they are subject to greater erosion.
But ice core data goes back at least 500,000 years and are dated using pollen, dust and other methods – do creationists not espouse the dendrochronology and pollen dating methods because they can be used for the recent past? We are after all still in the Pleistocene ice age, albeit within an inter-glacial, which has persisted for 2 million years. The evidence for this is so strong I don’t see how it can be ignored.
• There are limestones and dolomites frequently associated with these
‘tillites’—carbonates which form today in warm water, not cold.
The limestones associated with ancient glaciations (namely the Proterozoic ones ~700-500 Ma) occurred after the ice started to retreat. The oceans, having been cut off from CO2 by ice cover, became saturated with it and precipitated limestones. These are known as the ‘cap carbonates’. The CO2 built up in the atmosphere by outgassing from volcanoes which would not have ceased erupting during the snowball. This also provides a mechanism for melting the snowball once CO2 reached a critical level – runaway greenhouse. There is also much evidence to suggest that ice reached the tropics during the snowball.
• Underwater mass flows can produce tillite-like deposits, as well as
striated bedrock and striated stones in the ‘tillite’. Such mass flows
would be expected during Noah’s Flood.
So what? Mass flows also occur today, as well as submarine slumps of jumbled up material. This proves nothing.• Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very
quickly.6 These sediments are more accurately called rhythmites. A
varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and
Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that such varve-like
rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows.7
At one location, five couplets of these varve-like rhythmites formed
during a single year. At Mount St Helens in the USA, an 8 m (25 ft)
thick stratified deposit consisting of many thin varve-like laminae was
formed in less than one day (June 12, 1980).8 Flow tank experiments
have shown how laminations can form rapidly when two different
grain sizes are carried together in flowing water.9
Marine mass flows do not conflict with ancient ice ages. I know turbidites (turbulent flow deposits) pretty well – some extensive field work of mine included over 6000 feet of them. Notably, the soft snowball or slushball, allows for open expanses of water so deposition of varvites and turbidites is not a problem.• The so-called ‘dropstones’ could not have been dropped into the ancient
‘varvites’10 because such a method of placement would result
in tell-tale disturbance of the laminations, which is rarely observed.
The evidence suggests they were placed with the enclosing sediments
by turbidity currents or other mass flows—again consistent with what
would be expected during a global Flood. In other words the ‘varvites’
did not come from cyclical, annual, glacial lake deposition.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf
The authors don't say whether the dropstones are at the top or bottom of the flow - if they were deposited by turbidity currents as said, I could speculate that hydrological sorting would place them at the bottom as the heaviest material and the laminations would form around them - this is not in conflict with multiple ice ages.But for more technical material see sites such as:
Research Papers
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/
Selected Articles
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
I have looked at many of these papers and found them wanting.
“Slow-and-gradual evolutionary scenarios16 to explain the Ice Age do
not work.” from http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf
It’s not a question for evolution – it’s geology! If global warming and The Day After Tomorrow
have taught us nothing it’s that runaway effects, be they greenhouse or ice box, can and do happen. Feedback mechanisms have to be considered and are especially important in developing climate models today.
I hope I’ve made the geology here a bit more accessible, but it’s good to see both sides of the argument.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement