What I would Really Like to Draw your Attention to now, though, is a Certain Subject that came up in the Comment Thread. This was an Extremely Long Comment Thread and Even the Part of it that I want to Share with you is Long. I Only Included that which Relates to the Mount Saint Helens Subject and the Comments may be Edited Slightly to Remove that which does not Apply to the Subject and to Keep this Post a little more Brief. Before Reading the Comments, though, Please also Read the Link that I gave them that Relates to Mount Saint Helens. Here is the Part of the Conversation that Relates to Mount Saint Helens...
Lista said...
Woolf
"Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you."
Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying. I wonder too if I should remind you that an insult is not the same as an argument. 6:17 PM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "Now that I am Remembering the Video that I Watched Relating to Mount Saint Helens, I am Quite Certain that you are the One who is Lying."
Really? Now you've got me curious. What video is this? Who made it? Where did you see it? 6:59 PM
Lista said...
I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute. The video was excellent. You can call it Lies if you want to, but I've seen it and do not agree with you.
What is actually revealed is the Arrogance of those who continue to believe in Traditional Science and in their very Stubborn refusal to admit it when the possibility that they might be wrong is revealed.
Jon Woolf said..
Lista: "I Believe that we got it from the Christian Research Institute."
Ah. That explains a lot.
(A List of Credentials, Click on the Time Stamp Below this Comment if you want to see them.)
Never trust a creationist. Never.
Lista said...
It doesn't matter what your credentials are, Woolf. Evidence is Evidence and I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditals are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed.
That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You. 9:49 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "That Mount Saint Helens Video Impressed me, but you do not and I will Trust who I Want to, Thank You."
[shrug] Your choice. Though I think you're a bit foolish to trust anyone without looking at the facts for yourself -- not edited videos, but the original evidence, the fossils and rocks exactly as they're found Out There. 4:00 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
Fossils and Rocks?! Are you Kidding?! I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day. Here is a Quote from Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis.
"The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement and Here's another Quote, Emphasis Added by me...
"Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you ASSUMED that the river took a long time to erode the canyon."
Don't you see? That is just the Problem. Scientists ASSUME much more Often then they Know.11:52 AM
Jon Woolf said...
Lista: "I'd Like to Hear you Explain Away how a 100 Foot Deep Canyon was Formed in Less then one Day.
"I'd just Like to Hear you Try and Explain that One, Woolf. I don't Think that it Takes a Scientific Genius to Understand the Above Statement."
Understand it, no. Understand why it's wrong ... well, still no, but it does take a little more information to do that. Specifically, it requires knowing that the 'canyon' AiG is talking about was eroded through soft, loose volcanic ash, not through hard rock. No geologist would be stupid enough to claim that digging a 'canyon' through ash would take millions of years.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. This is, therefore, Evidence that the Traditional Thinking of Geologists in how Canyons are Formed is not Correct and that the Earth may Indeed be Younger than we had at One Time Thought.
Jon Woolf said...
"The Point is that if a 100 Foot Deep Canyon can be Formed in less than a Day by any means at all, then this makes it Likely that the Grand Canyon also was Formed in far less Time then Millions of Years. "
[sigh]
Go get your garden hose and hook it up. Try to use it to dig a hole in the backyard dirt. Not too hard, is it? That's what happened with the 'canyon' near Mt St Helens.
Now go try the same thing on the asphalt street or concrete sidewalk. Not so easy, is it? That's more like what happened with the Grand Canyon. Except that the rock of the Inner Gorge is even harder than concrete.
Lista said...
Woolf,
The Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known.
Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder. In a Young Canyon, like the One Near Mount Saint Helens, what remains is Softer because the Rain and Snow has not had the Time to Finish the Job so that Only Hard Rock Remains.
Ok, so I've Just Admitted that Natural Erosion may have Finished the Job, yet if a Catastrophe Started the Process, the Time Period of the Rest of the Erosion would be Considerably Shortened. The Fact Still Remains, though, that "The events associated with the volcano’s explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years."
This is a Significant Piece of Evidence. So Creeper's Claim that "YEC has nothing to offer." is Simply not True.
Lista said...
You Know Woolf,
Once I've Given this some Thought, I have Realized that your Comment about Rock Being Harder to Erode through than Ash was Actually Quite Deceptive and the Reason Why is because in Light of the Information I just Added, this is Irrelevant. Let's Review this Again.
"Anyone who Knows anything about Erosion Knows that what Erodes Away First is all the Soft Material and what Remains is that which is Harder."
Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away. What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion.
This Brings me Back to the Subject of Bias. To not View that which was Learned from Mount Saint Helens as Evidence is nothing more than Bias and to Call what is Offered by Evolutionism Evidence and what is Offered by YEC not Evidence can not be Called anything but Biased Arrogance. 1:11 PM
Jon Woolf said...
In the area of the 'Little Grand Canyon,' the ash and pyroclastics are something like 400 feet deep. The canyon penetrates less than half of that. Below that ash lies the old soil layer, and below that lies bedrock. The bedrock below the valley is itself the remains of older eruptions, so it's also largely consolidated pyroclastics, not "lava cap."
Lista: "the Actual Geology of the Part of the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, that is now Missing, can not be Known."
Well actually, yes it can. Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough. The sedimentary rock that fills this depression is called the Imperial Formation. The sediments of the Imperial Formation are clearly derived from the excavation of the Grand Canyon -- so clearly that we can identify specific sediments within the Imperial as coming from specific layers of the Colorado Plateau rocks.
Lista: "Based on this Reality, the Hard Rock that Remains at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, is in no Way Representative of that which was Washed Away."
You can't have meant that the way it sounds. You can't really mean that you think the Grand Canyon simply dug out soft rock, and left the surrounding harder rock intact. Nobody smart enough to operate a computer could think that. 6:39 PM
Lista said...
Woolf,
"Downstream of the Grand Canyon lies a large depression in the crust known as the Salton Trough."
Obviously anything that was Soft Like Ash would have Washed away and what Remains, even in this "Large Depression" is going to be the Heavier Stuff. This is Common Knowledge, not just in Relation to Erosion, but Also in Relation to Gold Panning.
Obviously there is going to be some Erosion of the Canyon Walls. That's been Taking Place for Quite Some Time. That's what you see in the "Salton Trough" and as to the Colorado Plateau Rocks, any Soft Stuff from Colorado has been Washed Down Stream and there is no Way for you to Prove Otherwise.
Erosion, Woolf, is the Process of Removing the Soft and Leaving the Hard. That is how Rock Formations are Formed. Go to Any National Park that has Rock Formations of any Sort at all and that is what they will Tell you, because that which is Hard does not Erode Away as Quickly.
Apparently, those who Work at National Parks and who Write the Information in their Visitors Centers must be too Dumb to Operate Computers.
Anonymous said...
"What you have Done, Woolf, is Insulted my Intelligence, for in order for me to Buy what you just said, I would have to Know Absolutely Nothing about Erosion."
If anything, Woolf has assumed that you know more about erosion than you apparently do - which would mean he has actually complimented your intelligence.
Here is a site with some useful info to allow you to catch up - Soil Erosion Site
Lista said...
Well Anonymous,
I Checked Out your Link and read some of it, but from what I can Tell, it is about "Soil" Erosion, not the Erosion of Rocks and Harder Materials, nor does it Talk about Canyons. It is Mostly in Relation to Farming and the Loss of Soil and Nutrients. My Discussion with Woolf has to do with what was Eroded Away in the Forming of the Grand Canyon and all I am saying is that Initially it was Soil and not Rock.
Sorry, but there is nothing in the Linked Website that you Left for me that Talks about the Erosion of Rocks and therefore, all that I have said still Stands.
39 comments:
RE:
"I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive creditably are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed."
Huh. Some of the nicest
people I know are
scientists....
Nice. :-)
Actually what Woolf suspects and fears is that the Flood did happen and most features like the Grand Canyon are layers of sedimentary rock laid down by the Noahic Flood and then, while not yet hardened, the Canyon itself was formed by a dike break or two that released a large flood from melted glacial waters.
We can now see the evidence of huge lakes like Missoula, that formed the Snake River's Hell's Canyon that even most secular geologists admit was the result of a breeched dike. One day the overwhelming evidence that the Grand Canyon presents will help prove the Noahic Flood and send the remaining Woolfs off to the woods to howl alone.
Thanks for the Comments. I Feel Bad that I have not had more Time to Respond. Perhaps Later this Afternoon or Evening, but I Thank You Both for Commenting and Welcome Kimbal. Wow! A Young Earther besides Radar Talks. Thank You.
Oh Shoot!! The Comments Disappeared when Blogger.com was Down, but you Know What? I Still have Copies of them in my Email Program and there were Only Two, so I'm Going to Try and Reconstruct them.
BB-Idaho said...
RE:
"I've been around long enough myself to realize that scientists are biased and even those who have impressive credentials are biased, so please forgive me when I tell you that I am not Impressed."
Huh. Some of the nicest people I know are scientists....
May 11, 2011, 3:53 PM
My Response
Lista said...
I Never said, BB, that Scientists are not Nice. It's just that Everyone is Biased, so when the Evolutionists Make a Big Deal about the Bias of Creationists they are Being Hypocritical.
I Think that my Initial Response to this was Longer, but I Lost it because Blogger.com was Down.
Or Actually Kimbal said...
Nice. :-)
Actually what Woolf suspects and fears is that the Flood did happen and most features like the Grand Canyon are layers of sedimentary rock laid down by the Noahic Flood and then, while not yet hardened, the Canyon itself was formed by a dike break or two that released a large flood from melted glacial waters.
We can now see the evidence of huge lakes like Missoula, that formed the Snake River's Hell's Canyon that even most secular geologists admit was the result of a breeched dike. One day the overwhelming evidence that the Grand Canyon presents will help prove the Noahic Flood and send the remaining Woolfs off to the woods to howl alone.
I Guess I Forgot to Note that Kimbal's Above Comment was Left on May 12, 2011, at 9:03 AM.
Hi Kimbal,
Or Actually it's Radar. Isn't it? Thanks for the Complement and Encouragement.
I guess my argument is with "scientists are biased and even those who have impressive credentials are biased,"
Science is about suppressing personal bias and concentrating on facts and data and attempting
hypotheses, theory and law.
Would you not use polio vaccine because Salk or
Sabin were scientists?
(and therefore biased)
Almost all modern 'stuff'
is based on science, and should we think them biased, none of it would work, would it?
When non-scientists disagree with scientific
findings (quite often, BTW)
they fall back on ad hominem, eg criticizing
the scientist, rather than
the science.
"Ad Hominem-The fallacy is committed when one engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or blunting the force of another's argument."
"Indeed, some who appear to take this view frame their arguments less as scientific critiques and more as ad hominem attacks on the credibility, expertise, or scientific training of any who do what scientists are trained to do: ask questions and seek answers."
(hopefully not offending, just defending my life's work!)
You are Right, BB,
Scientists are Supposed to Suppress their Personal Biases and Concentrate on the Facts, yet when it Comes to Religious and Political Issues, Scientists do not always push their biases aside as they should.
Evolution vs. Creationism is a Religious Issue and Naturalism is no Less of a Religion than Theism is. Evolution is Based on Naturalism, as well as an Atheistic World View.
Not all of Science is Religious or Political. Aside from Abortion, the Science of Medicine is Mainly about Preserving or Increasing the Quality of Life and not About Religion or Politics. There is Lots of Science that is Pretty Neutral, so you do not have to Defend your Profession. Much of your Profession is not at all Religious or Political.
Many Evolutionists Argue with Ad Hominem, just as you have Defined it.
True. One wonders if the
two POVs are so far apart
and come from different
experience and beliefs. We note disagreement among
scientists as well as among Christians. One should understand that science undergoes change as more discoveries are made (or mistakes discovered-the Piltdown Hoax is often brought up in that regard, but we
recall that paleoanthropology was just an infant science then)
We might ponder Christianity, one bible-
thousands of different
denominations; arguing over
scripture interpetation.
With inexactitude on both
sides of the argumentative
equation, it seems any
mutual understanding is
precluded. (except, I personally know scientists
who are creationists/ID, and I know pasters and churches that reconcile
the bible with modern science. One can only conclude with Kipling-
"OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;"
..for there will always be things to argue about as well as things to agree on.
BB,
"One should understand that science undergoes change as more discoveries are made."
This is True and Sometimes Bias Prevents some of these Changes from Occurring, such as when there was Resistance to the Idea that the Earth is not Flat and that it Circles the Sun. Sometimes it is the Church that Drags it's Feet, yet Right Now, I Believe that it is the Atheists and Naturalists.
"I personally know scientists who are creationists/ID, and I know pastors and churches that reconcile the Bible with modern science."
The First of the Above are Scientists. The Second of the Above are Non-Scientists that are more Interested in Harmony and Peace and the Avoidance of "Unnecessary" Waves, than they are in what's Actually True.
I Guess that I have more to say here.
Well BB,
I Decided to Read the Link you Left. The Piltdown Hoax is no Doubt One of the Examples that Creationist Use in Order to Argue Against Evolution.
The Article Mentions the "Wishful Thinking and Cultural Bias" of Scientists, Later Called "cultural prejudice" and "pre-conceived notions" Contributing to "the lack of critical thinking among British paleoanthropologists." and also that "the Piltdown forgery demonstrates the fallibility of scientific knowledge."
My Favorite Sentence, though, is that "Theories are the filters through which facts are interpreted." Don't you see? Evolutionists Filter their Interpretation of Fact through the Filter of their Theory. Another Way that this was Said was "that information always reaches us through the strong filters of culture, hope, and expectation....Once committed to a theory, we see what fits with the theory."
Another Problem with the Piltdown Hoax is that "scientists weren't allowed to see the evidence....They had to deal with plaster molds and be satisfied with a quick look at the originals to justify the claim that the models were accurate."
Well, this Sounds more Like a Cover Up and Intentional Deception, than Like Science and the Article Basically Admits this.
At any Rate, "science is a fallible, human activity which does not always take the most direct route in fulfilling its aim of understanding nature." and the Reason is because of "personal hopes and cultural prejudices".
I have seen Evolutionists Behave Like "Buffoons" or "those who demand absolute certainty where none can be had." They Demand Proof from Creationists, while not Admitting that Absolute Proof is not really Possible, not even for them.
Here's an Interesting Sentence, "when critics identify errors, they are ignored by true believers." This is just as True of those who Believe in Evolution as those who Believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism.
I Agree with most of this Article, yet what is Interesting is that the Author Appears to be Pointing the Finger at Creationists, when in Reality, all that he has Said Applies to Evolutionists as well and that is just the Problem. Many Evolutionists Think that their Opponents are the Ones with the Bias and Tend to Deny that they have their Equal Share of the Same.
I Guess there is One Last set of Sentences that I Want to Respond to…
"The buffoons are those who think that since both scientists and creationists or other pseudoscientists pose theories, each is doing essentially the same thing. However, all theories are not empirical, and of those that are empirical not all are equally speculative."
The First Sentence Basically Puts Creationists in the Same Category as "Other Pseudoscientists" and I do not Agree. The Second Sentence States that not all Empirical Theories are Equally Speculative, which is True, yet this is not Unlike Saying that Not all Evidence is Equal, which is also True. The Problem is that the Decision about the Value of Evidence is in itself Speculative and Subjective, as well as Subject to the Bias of the Scientists. Just as the Value of the Evidence is Speculative, so also, the Amount that such Evidence and the Theories they Support are Speculative is also Subjective and Speculative. You Simply can not Get Around the Problem of Bias and Evolutionists are just as Guilty, if not more so.
Just Read the Linked Article, Mount St. Helens - Evidence for Genesis! and Tell me that there is no Evidence that the Earth may be Younger than we at One Time Thought. If you Set your Bias Aside, you are going to have to Admit that Evidence is Exactly what it is and in my Opinion, this Evidence is Impressive.
I read the article; but you know me-had to find out about the author.
Ken Ham of 'Answers In
Genesis' and owner of the
'Creation Museum'. In 1972
he married a "very, very
submissive and supportive wife". Seems he can't even get along with fellow creationists:
"Ham's beliefs and tactics have been criticized by other Christians and Old earth creationists. Answers in Creation, an Old Earth creationist web site, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology. Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has publicly debated Ham and other Answers In Genesis staff on the age of the Earth compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible."
..sorry, having problems
'setting my bias aside' :)
In passing, I noted that Mr. Ham quotes 2nd Peter.
That particular epistle is
generaly thought by Christian scholars to be
of pseudopigraphic origin. What a tangled web...
Lista,
I'm just curious, with all this talk about erosion, how you might account for the thousands and thousands of feet of accumulated strata of rock (and each of those strata can be traced for sometimes hundreds of miles) in, for example, the Grand Canyon?
There are multiple distinct layers of strata of rock in the Grand Canyon. These are parallel on either side of the canyon (proving that they were emplaced prior to the canyon being eroded) and the entire thing is unconformably underlain by the Visnu Schist.
My question for you is, if you believe that all of this can be eroded in a single day or whatever, what kind of timeframe you believe is necessary to lay down these strata?
Thank You Both for your Comments. I Decided to Post them even though I'm Short on Time. I'll be Back Later with a Response.
Hi BB,
I was looking for something that thought Radar said that I can not Find, yet now that I'm looking again at One of your Previous Comments, I'm Realizing that I could just as easily quote you instead.
"When non-scientists disagree with scientific findings (quite often, BTW) they fall back on ad hominem, eg criticizing the scientist, rather than the science." (BB, May 14, 12:28 PM)
You may be a Scientist, but aren't you Right now Guilty of the "Ad Hominem" that you yourself described in your Above Comment? And anyway, it is Quite Common for People and also Scientists to Accuse their Opponents of Things. This Happens all the Time.
Yes, indeed, BB, you are having Trouble Setting your Bias Aside.
As to the Pseudepigraphic Nature of Certain Books of the Bible, such as 2 Peter, it doesn't really Matter who the Actual Author is. "The authenticity or value of the work itself....is a separate question for experienced readers.", just as is Stated in the Very Liberal Wikipedia
Satyavati,
If you Took the Time to Read the Link that I Left Regarding Mount Saint Helens, you Saw that there was a Mention of Layers. If that is what you are Talking about, then the Linked Article Answers your Question. If not, well, I Think I'll Invite Radar to Come Back and Respond to you because he Knows so much more about this than I do.
"If you believe that all of this can be eroded in a single day..."
This is not just a Belief, Satyavati, the Canyon Created by the Mud Slide at Mount Saint Helens WAS Eroded in a Single Day.
I did read the link, Lista, and if I understood it right, it was discussing the emplacement and erosion of material in the same day, and that uses this to infer that the Grand Canyon was similarly formed. I did look for detailed, up-close pictures of this canyon but was unable to find any.
The question I'm asking involves the many thousands of feet of strata at the Grand Canyon, which comprise various types of rock such as limestone (which precipitates in warm, shallow ocean conditions and in the case of the Grand Canyon contains marine fossils) and sandstones (also fossiliferous), and which is unconformably underlain by the Visnu Schist.
What I am curious about is what you would say the timeframe was for these thousands of feet of strata to be emplaced as rock, and to explain how a marine strata (and the carbonates that form limestone precipitate out of the water.. they don't evaporate) can be both underlain and overlain by sandstones (some of which are clearly desert, wind-bedded strata) in a short period of time, and how to account for geologic features such as the unconformity of the Visnu Schist at the base of the canyon. I'm interested to know what kind of timeframe would be required for all of this to occur.
These are Very Good Questions, Satyavati, and Unfortunately I'm not Qualified to Answer them. All I can do for now is Direct you to a Link that Explains Sedimentary Rock and here are some Pictures. Hopefully you have also Read Kimbal's Comment Above, Contained within my Comment, May 13, 2011, 9:48 PM. Kimbal is also Known as Radar. This is the One who I Hope will be Able to Answer your Question. Stay Tuned while I go Get him.
Well, I am not the authority to end all things, but the Grand Canyon needs to be seen as sediments layed down during the Noahic Flood first. The kind of rock layers we see there are common throughout the world. Some of the strata extend for hundreds or thousands of miles. They all show signs of water causation. Ian Juby did a great study using a plume machine to demonstrate how large quantities of water can make the kinds of layers found in the Grand Canyon and I should post that on my blog again.
Secondly, after the Flood abated then a tremendous shift in the weather patterns and ecosystems meant large amounts of precipitation in the air that fell as snow in the Northern climes, eventually forming massive glaciation. The reflective action of snow and ice and the reduction in precipitation and clouds then would help normalize the weather and the huge ice caps would begin to melt. The would form lakes within the glaciers or form lakes within a depression in the still-elastic new sedimentary rocks. When finally a dike would burst, massive amounts of water would quickly erode the mud-rock of Hell's Canyon or the Grand Canyon, leaving behind an impressive channel which would then be populated at the bottom by a tiny little river (comparatively). So then uniformitarian Darwinists come along and decide that millions of years and a river that went uphill for awhile did the deed. Ha!
Actually as geology is high amongst my avocations, Lista, I know a bit about sedimentary rock, and that's why I went ahead and read everything you referred me to...
...I saw a notation regarding sedimentary rock being laid down by the Noachic flood.. however, this doesn't explain how chemical sedimentation (like the limestones of the Grand Canyon, which contain marine fossils) would be laid down, nor does it explain how long it might take for such strata to form, and neither does it account for things such as the underlying unconformity of the Visnu Schist.
So I was hoping for some more information on all of this.
I'm not sure I understand how a flood can form a sedimentary layer of marine limestone (which forms under warm oceanic conditions) and which is both underlain and overlain by desert, wind-bedded sandstones.
Also, I'm not sure how a flood would tie in with the Visnu Schist nor the unconformities there.
And a bit confused about how to explain very delicate fossil emplacements in strata presumably laid down by vast quantities of floodwater.
And, actually, I have a couple more questions.
First, is there evidence for massive worldwide weather changes such as you mention immediately following a flood?
Second, during ice ages, the additional snow and ice on the surface of the earth provides a reflective surface (albedo) which wold promote further cooling. It is not until the snow/ice begin to melt that the albedo decreases, and dark areas, which absorb the sun's heat, occur. So I'm a bit confused as to what you're talking about with weather patterns.
Also, this discussion has been largely confined to sedimentary processes. Can you give me any information on the timeframe proposed for metamorphic rock emplacement?
Thanks Radar,
We look forward to your Post on the Subject, as you have said you are going to do. Please Keep us Informed and Leave a Link here once you have done the Post.
Satyavati's Question, though, was and still is a little more Specific than what you have Stated so Far. Unfortunately, I would have to do a lot of Web Research in Order to Answer it.
Also, Unfortunately, the Web is Filled with Traditional Understandings of these Things and one really has to Dig in Order to Find the more New Young Earth Point of View on the Matter.
Wow Satyavati,
I didn't Think that I was Going to Know the Answer to this, but there is a Possibility that I do.
First I Want to Start with something one Radar's Posts, Is the Bible Scientifieclly Correct? Introducing, Please Convince Me Dot.com. Here is a Quote from the Section Entitled "Are there Springs and Fountains in the Sea?"...
"In the past, many Bible skeptics have claimed that the oceans and the atmosphere together could not have contained enough water to flood the earth to the depth needed to cover the mountains, as described in the Great Flood story in Genesis. But is that really true? With the discovery of ocean springs, and the fact that the Bible says the springs in the oceans were broken up at the time of the flood, isn’t it possible that their flow would increase? How much extra water could the broken up springs produce?"
And Here is the Bible Verse...
Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
Now that I am Rereading all this again, the Quote that Most Relates to this is this One...
"Ocean springs were still unknown and undiscovered until 1977. Then, with only 5% of the ocean floor explored, Lewis Thomas (The Medusa and the Snail) wrote that scientists found springs in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador, and they found them at an ocean depth of 1.5 miles! They contained super heated water of about 450 degrees, and according to the article, explorers found even more springs of this nature. Scientists exploring another section of ocean found six springs about 60 miles apart. If this many springs were discovered with only 5% of the ocean floor explored, how many more springs might there be in the other 95%?"
The Point I want to Make is this. If these Highly Heated "springs of the great deep burst forth", as the Bible Suggests, then the Warm Ocean Water Rose and Mixed with all the Water from "the floodgates of the heavens" and there were therefore the Warm Ocean Currents Necessary for the "Marine Limestone"
That may Answer a Small Part of what you have Asked.
Meanwhile, you have Asked Enough Questions that I am Going to Refer you to Radar's Blog and Now that I have said that, I see that Radar has Just Done His more Recent Promised Post.
Well, thank you for the attempt, Lista, but on a thermodynamic level it wouldn't quite work, and then on a chemical level it wouldn't quite work, and on a fossiliferous level it's not quite working, and although I'm diligently poring through all of these links and so forth on this blog you've referred me to, it would be really nice if the writers in the articles of all those links referred to writings and experts outside their own group.
You see, I'm still trying to figure out how things like the Cretaceous strata that produced the White Cliffs of Dover (and that can be traced over vast areas of land), which are comprised mostly of things like coccoliths, which are the seperated body plates of microscopic organisms, could be deposited in any kind of a hurry. Things that are small enough to require an electron microscope generally tend to need peace and quiet (not a cataclysmic flood environment) for deposition.
I have also seen a vast quantity of writing on sedimentation and one or two notes on 'fast moving basalt' but I have yet to read anything on metamorphism. The reason this is interesting is because, of course, metamorphic rock is produced from a previously emplaced rock that is subjected to heat and pressure within the earth.
Also, I have not seen anything addressing the clearly desert-based nature of several of the sandstone strata of the Grand Canyon. These strata show clear cross-bedding caused by wind; there are distinct differences between wind-bedded and water-bedded strata that can be easily distinguished and that can clearly indicate whether a particular layer was laid down under water. I have been trying to find some information on this but so far have failed.
The Grand Canyon is one of (if not the most) intensely studied geologic features in the world and there are thousands of pages of research and documentation on it from the geologic community. So you will understand my interest in finding information that supports your viewpoint.
Well Satyavati,
I haven't had the Time Yet to Read Through Radar's most Recent Post to see whether he has or has not Answered your Questions. He has Reminded me, though, that Aside from the Hot "Springs of the Great Deep", there was also a lot of Volcanic Activity During the Flood. Here is a Comment that he Made in Response to me on his Own Blog...
Radar Said...
"Lista, not only springs from underground produce high temps, but rapid subduction of tectonic plates and volcanic activity would produce great heat as well. Flood event science is fascinating, as the Flood was a catastrophic event that dwarfs anything else the planet has seen. Tragedies like the Japan Earthquake or the Johnstown Flood are nothing compared to the Flood. Mt St Helens was a miniature teaching tool on the Grand Canyon formation, but the Flood to Mt St Helens is like the Sun compared to a grain of sand."
Also, Just Because the Canyon May have Initially been Created by the Great Flood and then Additional Floods from Glacier Waters does not Mean that there has not also been Erosion and also Wind Over the Years. I Think that we Miss a Lot in Our Understanding when we Insist that Things Need to be All One Thing or the Other.
I'll Admit, Satyavati, that a lot of what you are Saying is Over my Head. I do Hope that you will Read the Post that I Linked to on Radar's Blog and Actually Talk to him and Ask him these Questions. He Seems to Prefer Posting to Giving Long Explanations on Comment Threads. All I can say is that there is a Lot of Prejudice and Bias against New Ideas in the Scientific Community, especially when there is some Religious Book that Parallels the New Evidence that is Presented.
What I say is Forget the Book, but be Honest about the Evidence without Prejudice.
I'm trying to find the evidence, Lista. I'm seeing lots of words, but I've yet to see any real evidence. I'm not talking about Mt St Helens.. I'm talking more about the entire system, where the evidence is for volcanism during flood times, where the evidence is for these altered weather patterns, how to explain desert strata in between marine strata... I'm looking for the evidence, Lista. Waiting for someone to show me where it is.
Have you Read Radar's Post? Perhaps you have. The Next Thing that you Need to Do is Post your Questions on his Blog. If you Only Desire to Ask these Questions of an Amateur like myself, then you don't Really Want to Know the Answers.
I'm Reading these Comments again to see if there is anything that I would like to Add.
There are a Couple of Things that I would Like to Remember such as "the Snake River's Hell's Canyon that even most secular geologists admit was the result of a breached dike."
Here's a Quote to Remember...
"Theories are the filters through which facts are interpreted."
And Now Something for Saytyavati. If Limestone "precipitates in warm, shallow ocean conditions", then how do you Think it Got there, Considering the Great Distance of the Canyon from the Ocean? And how did the Marine Fossils and Marine Strata Get there? To me that Seems Like Evidence of the Presence of Ocean Water and how Else could Ocean Water be there Unless the Earth was at One Time Covered with Water, as in the Flood?
If you do not Like that Explanation, Satyavati, then how would you Explain it?
Here is something worth Repeating...
"Just Because the Canyon May have Initially been Created by the Great Flood and then Additional Floods from Glacier Waters does not Mean that there has not also been Natural Erosion and also Wind Over the Years. I Think that we Miss a Lot in Our Understanding when we Insist that Things Need to be All One Thing or the Other."
If we Allow for Both Flood Erosion and then Later more Slow, Natural Erosion from Snow, Rain and also Wind, then we can Allow for Sedimentary Rock (Flood Related), Marine Limestone and Fossils (Ocean Related) and then, Accumulated in more Recently History, Desert, Wind-Bedded Sandstone (Wind Related).
The Metamorphic Rock Shows Evidence of Volcanic Activity as well, so can we Really Claim that the Grand Canyon was Formed by Only One Thing? I Think that the Rocks Show Evidence of Multiple Erosion Causes and not Only One. Some of these Causes were Rapid and Some of them were Slow. It just Depends on What Part of the History we are Talking About.
As I was Writing and Proof Reading the Above, I was also Thinking about the Cretaceous Strata, "which are comprised mostly of things like coccoliths, which are the seperated body plates of microscopic organisms." Just as you said, Satyavati, "Things that are small enough to require an electron microscope generally tend to need peace and quiet (not a cataclysmic flood environment) for deposition."
Here's what I Pictured, as I Thought About that. The Initial Rushing in of the Water, during the Flood, may have Eroded the Canyon. Once the Flooding was Complete, the Water was Still for Awhile, until it was Fully Evaporated Up Again, as well as Soaked Back Up into the Ground. The Flooding was Rapid, but the Evaporation, Etc. was Slow.
The Other Thing to Remember, though, is that Natural Erosion from Rain, Wind and Snow happened Later. For Goodness Sake, the Flood is not the Entire Story of the History. That was just what Started it, yet the Initial Erosion from the Flood was no Doubt Significant.
The Evidence, Satyavati, is in the Rocks themselves. Thanks for Telling me about all the Rocks.
The biblical flood, huh?
Well, now I am worried about the end of the world tomorrow!
lol. I Doubt it. We are not Supposed to Know the Day or the Hour. Instead He will Come like a Thief in the Night. You Better be Ready, though. You do not want to be Left Behind, for the Eternal Fire is Likely Lava.
Erosion vs Time aside, you
have brought up a legitimate and interesting
topic. The bias blind spot is an inate
tendency to perceive bias
in others, while not finding it in ourselves.
Sometimes referred to as the 'Lake Wobegon Effect';
that fictional Minnesota
town where '..ALL the children are above average'. It has been noted that our personal
'bias' is part of what we are, the sum of genetics,
experience, learning, etc.
So..we need consider that
when disagreeing about stuff. But, gosh darn, I
just reviewed my subconcious and I simply cannot find any bias! :)
"It has been noted that our personal 'bias' is part of what we are, the sum of genetics, experience, learning, etc."
That, however, is a Deterministic Point of View. In Other Words, we are Predetermined to have a Certain Bias and we can not do a Thing about it. If we are Locked into it and just can not get Past our own Bias, then there is Really no Point of Any of us Talking to Each Other at all, Everything is Relative and there is no Absolute Truth. Yet There is such a Thing as Truth.
You are the One, BB, that Said that "Science is about suppressing personal bias and concentrating on facts and data". If this is so, then the Suppressing of Bias must be Possible.
Well, if you don't have any Bias, BB, then here; Have some of Mine. That would be One way of Persuading you to my View Point, wouldn't it? lol.
Gee, I didn't realize the
'bias blind spot' was deterministic. Guess I'm just too biased! :)
(or confused about the nurture/nature paragigm).
Just a little bemused today, having survived another rapture and all...
Believing that you can not get Past your Own Bias and View Things Subjectively is Deterministic. I haven't Read the Linked Article yet. I was just Going by the Words in your Comment.
Post a Comment