Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173507 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#94869 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis mentions a water canopy that existed in the atmosphere at the time. It was condensed and started rainfall for the first time. This could also explain the hyperbolic atmosphere and mega fauna/flora, as life was enhanced in this environment and we were better protected form harmful UV etc.. The true definition of the "greenhouse effect"! Explains well how the fossils are tropical at the poles.
There is a moon on either Jup or Saturn that has a ice canopy, is this a hit left for us? There is also a "lake of burning sulfur" on one of these moons - another hint? Atmospheric scientists tell us there is a missing layer above us, was it once water vapor?
You know, a reptile never stops growing until it dies..
Methinks you have not really thought this thorough. Please be aware that there is nor ever has been enough water on this earth to flood a 12,742 km diameter ball to a depth of almost 9 kilometers metres above current sea level. I once calculated just how much extra water was needed, canít remember the exact result but it was something more than 18,375,000,000 cubic kilometres of ďextraĒ water above the 1,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water that exists on earth

I really think the problem here is that the goat herders and runaways slaves who wrote genesis in the bronze age were not that good at mathematics and so in exactly the same was as good religious people do today, they made a guess based on truthiness. I.e. it sounded right so it was truth enough for them and stuff the facts.

Note that uncompressed water vapour occupies some 1,600 times the volume of liquid water so thatís over 29,400,000,000,000 cubic kilometres of water vapour over and above the water that exists as water. Which of course means that the water vapour would have extended beyond the atmosphere and hence around four fifths would have been blown away by the solar wind.

Also wrong, Europa (not the god but the moon) is an ice moon, it does not have an ice canopy, the predominantly oxygen atmosphere is too tenuous to support water vapour.

Io,(not the god but the moon) has a high sulphur content, the gravitation of Jupiter causes compression of the moons surface which generates internal heat enough to turn the sulphur molten. So no hint there just pure physics

What atmospheric scientist are you referring to? May I suggest you post a link so that we may all benefit from your learning.

Not quite true, a reptile is capable of growing until it dies, however the rate of growth is dependant on itís food source.

You know, the turritopsis nutricula is immortal. Please advise the god logic behind creating a jelly fish to be immortal yet not so his cherished creation, approximately 50% of whom worship him in one way or another?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94870 Jul 3, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you should not label yourself too harshly. Ok what the hell you nailed it this first time. You are Massively stupid.
Hard to hide that.
If that what you want to believe, have at it. What the galacticly stupid think is of no consequence to me.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#94871 Jul 3, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Well nail moon sheep bin believe atheist drone sly skid top pie car hardware hitch manny trunk like fan way milk sum.
Makes about as much sense as the rest of the drivel you've posted. Maybe more.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#94872 Jul 3, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>maybe that was the 'little ice age'?
you know when monks in the alps were performing exorcisms on the advancing glaciers as they were thought to be possesed by demons and the church let millions starve to death instead of letting them plant this wonderful new food from the new world that could handle the colder temps, the potato, because they thought it was the 'devil's root'...
and ice age of science, maybe, all brought to you by our magnificent religious cults...
Yah. Thank you, Church.

The Little Ice Age, of course, was a modest cooling of parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including bits of North America.

The dates vary wildly from place to place, as did the severity, leading to the conclusion that the effects were largely local.
RedHorseRevelati on

AOL

#94873 Jul 3, 2013
.

Bible PROOF 1.5 BIL MUSLIMS to die --

http://youtu.be/n7ok0g8iwJI

.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#94875 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis mentions a water canopy that existed in the atmosphere at the time. It was condensed and started rainfall for the first time. This could also explain the hyperbolic atmosphere and mega fauna/flora, as life was enhanced in this environment and we were better protected form harmful UV etc.. The true definition of the "greenhouse effect"! Explains well how the fossils are tropical at the poles.
There is a moon on either Jup or Saturn that has a ice canopy, is this a hit left for us? There is also a "lake of burning sulfur" on one of these moons - another hint? Atmospheric scientists tell us there is a missing layer above us, was it once water vapor?
You know, a reptile never stops growing until it dies..
Hate to break it to you SBT, but if there were that much water in the atmosphere for any length of time, all life on Earth would perish. Better protected from harmful UV? I'll say, more like better protected from any form of sunlight. And where did all of this water go AFTER the flood? If you say it evaporated, it would have had to evaporate very fast to give the animals dry land to graze. If that were the case, again, total blackout from such intense evaporation, end of story. Now if it had said that Noah built a barn protected with a lead lining to protect the animals from some odd solar havoc and bombardment of ions and such, well, that might have been a bit more believable.

Iím not trying to discredit the Bible, I do believe it serves an important purpose. And after all, who am I to question such an important work. But I also believe that its passages were intended to be accepted as metaphorical experiences, of no less importance, for its believers to follow. Just my two pennies.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94876 Jul 3, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to break it to you SBT, but if there were that much water in the atmosphere for any length of time, all life on Earth would perish. Better protected from harmful UV? I'll say, more like better protected from any form of sunlight. And where did all of this water go AFTER the flood? If you say it evaporated, it would have had to evaporate very fast to give the animals dry land to graze. If that were the case, again, total blackout from such intense evaporation, end of story. Now if it had said that Noah built a barn protected with a lead lining to protect the animals from some odd solar havoc and bombardment of ions and such, well, that might have been a bit more believable.
Iím not trying to discredit the Bible, I do believe it serves an important purpose. And after all, who am I to question such an important work. But I also believe that its passages were intended to be accepted as metaphorical experiences, of no less importance, for its believers to follow. Just my two pennies.
Wouldn't the energy required to evaporate that much water sort of heat things up a bit?

I recently read an idea that the flood story was included in Genesis as a monotheistic version of pre-exising polytheistic flood stories to show the greatness of God over these other gods. This idea does follow the notion that religion draw substance from pre-existing religions, but it still leaves this as just a story.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94877 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed rightaway that the author omitted the number 1 evidence for a worldwide flood, the Great Unconformity that shows up all over the planet;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformi...
Kudos, you wrote a long post and at least argued the evidence, which is more than most do. I think you are the first even to accept the challenge of reading it. Most creationists appear to be afraid of it.

Yet the errors in your claims are glaring. I will have to spread this over a couple of posts, but you deserve a detailed response.

Firstly, in the Grand Canyon, the great discontinuity is found in the pre-Cambrian layer. Thus it would make no sense at all to discuss it in the context of the search for the flood layer.

Aside from a few Ediacaran remains, the entire fossil record lies above it. So its inconceivable, particularly in relation to 15,000 metres of assorted layers such as the crinoids and the slow forming shales, not to mentioned the extensively burrowed layers, the anhydrous layers that could form only in dry periods, etc, that the flood applies to the PreCambrian and can fill up the entire geologic column.

More generally, your problem is that there is not ONE discontinuity but many, in different parts of the world, all in DIFFERENT layers. Thus there could not be ONE time when this supposed event occurred.

In fact the real pattern of discontinuities is easily explained in terms of the rise and fall of various areas in response of tectonic drift and match its predictions. Your attempt to describe this as a singular event is inaccurate.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94878 Jul 3, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to break it to you SBT, but if there were that much water in the atmosphere for any length of time, all life on Earth would perish. Better protected from harmful UV? Just my two pennies.
It seems amazing to me that the older world, the world we see in the fossils, is so diverse when we are told evolution is an upward self-directed mindless system of onward advancement, how does that work today? Animals/plants and possibly even man were large and well formed to fit the past environment that seems to have been a thriving place - what happened to this world to stunt it?

Many admit there was a more tropical climate that encompassed most of the earth in the past. What few talk about (except folks like Michael Orrd and the past Dr. Maynard Miller, Americas most experienced Glaciologist), was that if you have warm oceans and then somehow the atmosphere takes a dramatic change downward in temperature, a new rain/evaporation cycle emerges, that the contact of warm oceans to a cold atmosphere (they have found mastodons frozen whole with the buttercups still hanging out of their mouths) would result in massive evaporation of the oceans.

This would create massive snow fall causing glaciation on a grand scale in the higher latitudes, going on for years and years until things stabilize. I my years flying and working in the rocks around the world, it makes perfect sense to me and explains so much of the life and geology of the Earth. A canopy is reasonable, but not absolute to have been part of the pre-flood world, but things were different for sure -

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-ear...

There are also so many out of sequence fossils, those that don't align with the 'geologic column'. Looks nice on paper, doesn't exist in the field. The Grand Canyon should be a showcase for it, but it completely fails and even contradicts the column unless you read the 8th grade textbooks!

Presuming a watery catastrophe, one must understand how fossils are trapped and mineralize - they must be smothered quickly and have an aqueous and typically sandstone mixture to be preserved. Falling in a river doesn't make it - which is exactly what they claim happened in hundreds of feet of fossil laden sediments of the Morrison (a turbidity - high speed underwater mud flow), the most dinosaur dense formation ever found that stretches for thousands of square miles between Denver and surfaces near Moab, Utah. A river? Ridiculous. We know that reptiles sink when they die and mammals bloat and float. Then they deteriorate and decompose in a matter of days. How then can complete creatures and plants be preserved? Doesn't that explain why retiles makeup the lower end of the column and mammals are further up? This is not always the case also. In the Lewis range in Montana we have shell fossils above the Dinos and in Eastern Oregon pregnant Plesiosaur was found trapped above the mammal fossils swimming and struggling for her life! Interesting to note other pregnant plesiosaurs have been found fossilized - does that give us a clue that they were covered in the same catastrophe? Believe me God can handle how much water he wanted on earth, where and when! He can also take care if Noah, our ancestor, all those on the Arc and you and me.

http://mitchelloregon.us/the-plesiosaur/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/08/p...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94879 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Number 2, he failed to mention anything about the relearning of uniformity that occurred after Mt St. Helen's blew, which challenged 40 years of uniform geologic feature forming dogma taught since the 1940's.
I am sure explanations in geology have changed since Mt St Helens, although the typical creationist claims that an analogous event can explain the Grand Canyon formations are laughable, completely failing to account for the meandering path of much of the canyon or the way its tributary channels fit. But, Geology continues to learn more all the time, no surprise there.
He failed to mention the Missoula flood, which turned into a witch hunt of a non-conforming geologist J. Bretz...
Well that may be, though he wasn't out to write the entire Geology textbook, but to examine which, if any, of the geological layers, could be the "Flood Layer" corresponding to Biblical myth.

Yet its strange that you think Bretz' position is a defence of your Biblical Flood. Its quite clearly something that fits into the modern understanding of events related to the end of the last Ice Age.
3 He failed to mention the well logs, showing that the planet had a different super oxygen charged atmosphere, fully capable of creating microcreature blooms not possible today.He also neglected to mention the warm climate fauna and mega flora, also found near the poles,(like Alaska) showing that the "world that then was, was destroyed by water", and was a completely different place than the remnant we observe and live in now. I could go on and on.
Please don't. The lush climate experienced during some periods on Earth are no secret, but can be found in any text book covering, for example, the Mid Jurassic and the Carboniferous.

We are well aware that oxygen levels were higher at times in the past, and the climate supportive of more lush flora and fauna, almost to the poles.

However, your suggestion that even super oxygen levels could compress the required thousands of feet of crinoids and other deposits into a year or a few years is absurd. You could accelerate the growth rate by 100x and still not get even close to fitting the deposits into the >6000 year window you are suggesting.
4 He went on and on about water formed strata with fossils abounding, I agree they exist and add that formations of water deposited dead things pile over a mile high in places covering thousands of square miles, not exactly a local flood, correct?
Your math is way out, if you think all this could be accounted for by sudden death of any amount of life at one time. For example, do you realise you could pile all 7 billion humans alive today into about a cubic mile? That should offer some perspective! Perhaps you should read his stats on the Crinoids again.
Why are there no fossils in the Grand Canyon Supergroup if evolution made life?
Because the Grand Canyon Supergroup is composed of Proterozoic rock, of course. There are precious few fossils of any kind in the world prior to the Cambrian. So what would you expect?
5 He mentioned laminates, it's been disproved 40 years ago that those were not tree ring style annual accumulations, but formed by changing currents, as fossil fish eating smaller fish were found trapped within dozens of layers.
One can write a paper like this and claim thus and so, but it all falls apart when questioned by someone who knows the difference.
In fact he discusses fossil fish eating other fish etc. But I think you are confusing that period with the superfine laminate periods in which there is evidence of burrowing, but not fish remains crossing many of those layers simultaneously.

Anyway, thanks for reading it.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94880 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems amazing to me that the older world, the world we see in the fossils, is so diverse when we are told evolution is an upward self-directed mindless system of onward advancement, how does that work today? Animals/plants and possibly even man were large and well formed to fit the past environment that seems to have been a thriving place - what happened to this world to stunt it?
Many admit there was a more tropical climate that encompassed most of the earth in the past. What few talk about (except folks like Michael Orrd and the past Dr. Maynard Miller, Americas most experienced Glaciologist), was that if you have warm oceans and then somehow the atmosphere takes a dramatic change downward in temperature, a new rain/evaporation cycle emerges, that the contact of warm oceans to a cold atmosphere (they have found mastodons frozen whole with the buttercups still hanging out of their mouths) would result in massive evaporation of the oceans.
This would create massive snow fall causing glaciation on a grand scale in the higher latitudes, going on for years and years until things stabilize. I my years flying and working in the rocks around the world, it makes perfect sense to me and explains so much of the life and geology of the Earth. A canopy is reasonable, but not absolute to have been part of the pre-flood world, but things were different for sure -
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-ear...
There are also so many out of sequence fossils, those that don't align with the 'geologic column'. Looks nice on paper, doesn't exist in the field. The Grand Canyon should be a showcase for it, but it completely fails and even contradicts the column unless you read the 8th grade textbooks!
Presuming a watery catastrophe, one must understand how fossils are trapped and mineralize - they must be smothered quickly and have an aqueous and typically sandstone mixture to be preserved. Falling in a river doesn't make it - which is exactly what they claim happened in hundreds of feet of fossil laden sediments of the Morrison (a turbidity - high speed underwater mud flow), the most dinosaur dense formation ever found that stretches for thousands of square miles between Denver and surfaces near Moab, Utah. A river? Ridiculous. We know that reptiles sink when they die and mammals bloat and float. Then they deteriorate and decompose in a matter of days. How then can complete creatures and plants be preserved? Doesn't that explain why retiles makeup the lower end of the column and mammals are further up? This is not always the case also. In the Lewis range in Montana we have shell fossils above the Dinos and in Eastern Oregon pregnant Plesiosaur was found trapped above the mammal fossils swimming and struggling for her life! Interesting to note other pregnant plesiosaurs have been found fossilized - does that give us a clue that they were covered in the same catastrophe? Believe me God can handle how much water he wanted on earth, where and when! He can also take care if Noah, our ancestor, all those on the Arc and you and me.
http://mitchelloregon.us/the-plesiosaur/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/08/p...
Please explain how something can be both self-directed and mindless at the same time. That statement immediately shows a lack of understanding of evolution.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#94881 Jul 3, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not evolution
The Natural Direction of Life Is Degeneration, Not Evolution
So a new-born baby, a new life, degenerates from that state down??

Give it up dude....evolution happens....it's fact.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94882 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
There are also so many out of sequence fossils, those that don't align with the 'geologic column'. Looks nice on paper, doesn't exist in the field. The Grand Canyon should be a showcase for it, but it completely fails and even contradicts the column unless you read the 8th grade textbooks!
You are making a claim, but what is the evidence here? What are these out of sequence fossils and where are they? What is it about the Grand Canyon that it fails to support the conclusions of Geology?

Now you have previously failed to answer my questions, so I don't expect that to change. It is a paradigm I have become used to. Meaning you are the first young earther to do this.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#94883 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe me God can handle how much water he wanted on earth, where and when! He can also take care if Noah, our ancestor, all those on the Arc and you and me.
http://mitchelloregon.us/the-plesiosaur/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/08/p...
So here we have it. After all that verbosity, and attempts to sound technically proficient, it boils down to "God did it with magic".

You could have all saved us a lot of reading.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94884 Jul 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Kudos, you wrote a long post and at least argued the evidence, which is more than most do. I think you are the first even to accept the challenge of reading it. Most creationists appear to be afraid of it.
Yet the errors in your claims are glaring. I will have to spread this over a couple of posts, but you deserve a detailed response.
Firstly, in the Grand Canyon, the great discontinuity is found in the pre-Cambrian layer. Thus it would make no sense at all to discuss it in the context of the search for the flood layer.
Aside from a few Ediacaran remains, the entire fossil record lies above it. So its inconceivable, particularly in relation to 15,000 metres of assorted layers such as the crinoids and the slow forming shales, not to mentioned the extensively burrowed layers, the anhydrous layers that could form only in dry periods, etc, that the flood applies to the PreCambrian and can fill up the entire geologic column.
More generally, your problem is that there is not ONE discontinuity but many, in different parts of the world, all in DIFFERENT layers. Thus there could not be ONE time when this supposed event occurred.
In fact the real pattern of discontinuities is easily explained in terms of the rise and fall of various areas in response of tectonic drift and match its predictions. Your attempt to describe this as a singular event is inaccurate.
If you look @ crosssection of the GU I linked, the basement crust itself was factured and turned, I have stood on them. So those we're new granite mountain ranges that were worn, or more like 'sawed' off catastropically. At the GU contact there, the material is melted and superheated. Before the GCanyon was a park, these were mined. What I am trying to say is the GU and overburden there in no why were formed by "placent seas". We are talking about an event that can transect 15Kfeet and more. Its really difficult to comprehent the magniture and does boggle the imagination relating to what we observe today. I will say I showed slides of this to a high level geologist and he agreed with me on this point.

Thanks for a refreshing rebuttal that is not hiding behind the barrier of the web. I apprecaite it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94885 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>

The Missoula Flood was a local post-flood event true, similar to cyclic floods that were occurring into the 1960's in Alaska. Point is, good geology got mocked by establishment folks.
So you are merely appealing to the notion that because Geology was slow to accept Bretz' hypothesis, that somehow that means your kooky ideas might be correct?
Drive over to St. Helens and look at the post eruption canyon, visitor center and a hundreds other unique features there. The "one grain of sand at a time" uniform erosion myth of valley formation was blown to bits.
Yes, and how much of this uniform erosion myth is merely a strawman created by creationists to argue against? Do you have any idea how often creationists use this tactic?
You need to restudy the zoology of early life relative to super-oxygenated atmosphere. Huge insects were buzzing around with tiny breathers, the calcium in the nautiluses has perplexed biologist for years.
And once again, we all knew about high oxygen levels and foot long dragonflies buzzing around. Even eight foot millepedes! We even know about the Permian extinction which may have occurred as a result of a catastrophic fall in oxygen levels 250 mya. Which reminds me of another fact that your flood YEC ideas completely fails to address adequately. Repeated mass extinctions followed by a clear pattern of new re-radiations of species in the millions of years that follow, including clear progressions over the "good periods" too. For example, the dinosaurs that first emerged after the Permian were far different from the ones that were still living 100 million years later. And not an elephant, rhino, cat, bear, rabbit or ape in the fossil record the whole time.

In fact, the fossil record is completely at odds with Creationist predictions. If all life was in its modern from from the start, there should be a suparabundant fossil record from the Cambrian with something of everything, followed by a gradual winnowing out of the species as some died off. Even a large extinction event, the Flood. But this is nothing like what we see.
They can't determine how it was formed, same effects the blooms, can't happen today. It's all completely different from our earth today, part of God's 'Very Good' planet.
Sooner or later "scientific creation" accounts always revert to special pleading and magic. So why do you even bother with the pretence of being scientific???? That is a genuine question.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94886 Jul 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>How would soft sediments have maintained a vertical profile? They couldn't. Dry sand doesn't hold a vertical profile and wet sand is actually less able to hold such a profile. How do you explain the layers of rock in the layers of the Grand Canyon that have a wind formed origin between water formed layers? You know nothing and are making this up as you go.
No making anyting up. I have spent a few weeks in the canyon. Never heard of or seen any lit on intra-layer erosion. They preach "multiplle placent seas" at the visitor center. Again, look at the crosssection in the wiki great unconformity link. You have nothing but horizontally deposity water-bourn sediments sorted between limestone shales and sanstones. There are 2 magma intrutions, one at the bottom and one fresh one over the canyon lip.

After all this was layed down in the flood year, it had not lithified yet. There was a natural backwater lake to the north of Page, trapped by the kaibab upwarp,(the origanol lakeshore indicates it was larger than all the great lakes combined). This natural dam overflowed near page and ripped out the canyons then soft sediments to form what we see today. In time it all lithified. A simalar event occured @ ST helens also leaving sorted layers that appear the same as the GC but in 1/40 scale.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#94887 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
If you look @ crosssection of the GU I linked, the basement crust itself was factured and turned, I have stood on them. So those we're new granite mountain ranges that were worn, or more like 'sawed' off catastropically. At the GU contact there, the material is melted and superheated. Before the GCanyon was a park, these were mined. What I am trying to say is the GU and overburden there in no why were formed by "placent seas". We are talking about an event that can transect 15Kfeet and more. Its really difficult to comprehent the magniture and does boggle the imagination relating to what we observe today. I will say I showed slides of this to a high level geologist and he agreed with me on this point.
Thanks for a refreshing rebuttal that is not hiding behind the barrier of the web. I apprecaite it.

Honestly.....I don't see how he can take you flud chasers seriously. The flood myth has been shown to be false for at least a 100 years, how you nincompoops can still be insisting it happened is a 5 alarm fire of stupidity.

The very first problem nobody ever talks about , completely falsifies it from the jump. So here it is.

The flood supposedly was made to happen because man was wicked and evil. The main purpose was to destroy the evil menz.

Now show us anywhere in the strata at any level where there is a mass extinction of humans, it would be there.
We see it for the dinosaurs, and we saw it with mammals such as the woolly mammoth. But nowhere do you find a mass extinction of humans from a flood. This should be a world wide layer, and in that specific layer dead humans, as well as all other creatures.
So far you got zip.
No smoking gun = nothing to go all biblical boneheaded about.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#94888 Jul 3, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
No making anyting up. I have spent a few weeks in the canyon. Never heard of or seen any lit on intra-layer erosion. They preach "multiplle placent seas" at the visitor center. Again, look at the crosssection in the wiki great unconformity link. You have nothing but horizontally deposity water-bourn sediments sorted between limestone shales and sanstones. There are 2 magma intrutions, one at the bottom and one fresh one over the canyon lip.
After all this was layed down in the flood year, it had not lithified yet. There was a natural backwater lake to the north of Page, trapped by the kaibab upwarp,(the origanol lakeshore indicates it was larger than all the great lakes combined). This natural dam overflowed near page and ripped out the canyons then soft sediments to form what we see today. In time it all lithified. A simalar event occured @ ST helens also leaving sorted layers that appear the same as the GC but in 1/40 scale.
Why don't you see what real geologists have to say about it.



I think they make sense, you....not so much.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94889 Jul 3, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain how something can be both self-directed and mindless at the same time. That statement immediately shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
What I mean is chemicals have no mind and then must be self-directed to create life if not directed by intelligence. Reason and logic demand that complexity doesn't come about by accident and chance. We enjoy operational science that provides all the gadgets we use to make life simpler, but somehow we then at the same time throw out reason, experience and Logic then switch when we view the natural world, even though we have no means to replicate its colossal complexity as humans. I see a jet and say man made it, in the same moment a bird flys by that in many ways schools the jet and we reason it has no maker?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 7 min Doug77 5,884
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 6,217
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 17 min lost in Mississippi 43,492
True False Game (Jun '11) 19 min Brother Larry 10,020
This or That (Jul '10) 21 min Brother Larry 8,163
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 23 min Joe 80,096
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 35 min Doug77 32,709
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Crazy Jae 169,326
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 18,653
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr CommUnique 29,702
More from around the web