From: Bill Payne (bpayne15@juno.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 23:12:30 EDT
Welcome back David.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:20:50 -0400 "bivalve"
<bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> writes:
>
> >You should be asking whether a Flood acting over a
> short period of time or rainfall acting over millions of years would
> best explain our observations of the paraconformities I have
> cited.<
>
> I would agree that this is the question, with a few caveats. One is
> that this determines the better explanation, rather than the best.
> Another is that wind, waves, chemical erosion, organismal activity,
> and many other factors besides rainfall are involved. More
> importantly, the examples of paraconformities are only a small part
> of the geologic record; thus, the fundamental question is whether
> Flood geology or conventional geology better explains the entire
> suite of deposits in question.
I'm not trying to be evasive here, but I am responding to the specific
challenge made by Michael:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:17:01 -0000 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> Can anyone give me one creationist argument which doesnt turn out to be
> false or a semantic game when it is scrutinised?
This 'one creationist argument' is now limited to one paraconformity in
the Grand Canyon. I am simply asking that we address this one feature
and tell me the best-fit-with-the-data explanation. We have a gap of
millions of years and erosional features limited to 8 feet or less! I've
seen deeper cuts develop almost overnight in strip-mine spoil. Instead
of putting the monkey on my back, tell me how you propose to erode
(bevel) the entire Devonian section without lacerating the Cambrian Muav?
> However, to answer this question, it is necessary to know what a
> Flood acting over a short period of time would do. Thus, by
> requesting that you provide a coherent model of the Flood, I am
> trying to address this question. I have no idea what a Flood would
> do acting over a short period of time because various Flood
> geologists claim it could do anything that happens to need
> explaining.
As you well know, that sword cuts both ways.
> Likewise, it is necessary to know what observations are to be
> explained in order to tell what model provides a better explanation.
> The question about what layers are attributed to the Flood has two
> important bearings on the issue. First, I have had no opportunity
> to examine the strata of the Grand Canyon,
Neither have I; we're both having to rely on what we read.
> but I am familiar with
> the contacts found in strata in the coastal plain here in the
> eastern U.S. I can provide plenty of information on how well they
> fit with a particular model, if the model in question is considered
> to be applicable.
I've always thought that most of the coastal plain is post Flood, so
those contacts probably would not be considered (by me) to be applicable.
> Secondly, the layers being explained provide
> important constraints on how well a Flood model explains things. A
> process that takes days to weeks to generate a paraconformity is
> incompatible with a one-year Flood model if the geologic section in
> question contains 500 paraconformities (not to mention time for
> depositing the intervening layers), for example.
Since we have no idea how long it takes for a Flood to produce a
paraconformity, this argument neither helps nor hurts either of us.
> Of course, there is also the problem of chosing criteria for a
> better explanation. What makes an explanation better? My taste in
> explanations differs from yours, but if we can choose explicit
> criteria we can decide whether one explanation is better by that
> particular criterion.
Your explanation would be better if you could explain how to erode the
Devonian without eroding the Cambrian (more than 8 feet relative to the
rest of the planar surface).
Bill
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 23:17:31 EDT