Quote:
Originally Posted by bigrobwoot
I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101  ) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.
Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts. |
A point of fact is that I did not try to make evidence fit a conclusion I had already made. I was a serious believer in a billions of years old earth...UNTIL I found evidence to the contrary. Your assumption is that I did things the other way around. It was the vidence that I found out in the field that convinced me that the earth could not be billions of years old..later studying uncovered more evidence to back that up. The issue is not that I made any mistakes in what I believe could be a plausable cause to much of the earth's erosion...but that the average evolutionist is the one who makes that mistake by assuming that much of the erosion we see could NOT have been caused by massive worldwide flooding. What we are dealing with here is time and volume of water. Some of the erosion we see was obviously NOT caused by a huge flood, because the amount of erosion is not very big...and erosion is an ongoing process. However, the erosion evidence we see does NOT rule out the possibility of global flooding as a cause. In fact, many erosional features we see HAD to be caused by global-scale flooding simply because of the structure we see and the sheer volume of sediments that were moved.
Many smaller flood events would leave a distinctive pattern of varying grain size in the layers (larger on bottom, smaller on top). You would see this pattern repeated in sequence every time you had a flood. We do see this on a small scale with local flooding, but the big sediment deposits (ie. the Navaho Sandstone in Grand Canyon) do not show this pattern. Neither do they show evidence of surface erosion between layers as you would expect to see between flood events. You would also have to find a way to explain why the same layers can be found in Arizona, New York, and Scotland. It takes a global scale flood to move that much sediment and distribute it halfway across the planet.
Of course, there are other processes that have shaped our world more recently, but that still does NOT eliminate the possibility that a global flood did most of the damage. Millions of years of smaller floods could certainly erode mountains and canyons, but they would have left different erosion patterns than what we actually see in the rocks. The big assumption is that the earth actually had the time to do this (the millions of years thing)...and there are several lines of evidence that show that the earth could not possibly be that old. Everyone that believes in millions of years has to rely on one of two things...the geologic column and age dating.
The geoligic column was invented without the benefit of age dating, or even any evidence that the rocks appear in age sequence. Rocks matching the geologic column's age sequence do not exist on earth ANYWHERE...and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Even my own professors admitted they don't exist. Next, ALL age dating techniques are faulty and do not work...been proven time and again BY SECULAR SCIENTISTS. They are all based on assumptions about initial conditions that no one was around to observe. The only reason why the millions of years thing was invented was to try to give some credability to evolution theory, whcih needs the time to even have a chance (even with that it can't work, but that is a molecular biology discussion....happy to get into that as well).
Other evidence for a young earth involve things like the reduction in earth's rotational speed, the ever-increasing distance of the moon, and atmospheric carbon 14 equlilibrium issues. Happy to discuss them all.
By the way, Lake Lahontan drying up isn't an issue of erosion, but rather climate change. It was a realitively recent event, even by geologic standards. The whole idea here is to realize that, based on the actual evidence seen in the rocks (not to mention some laws of physics), a global flood does a much better job of explaining the geologic features than smaller local floods over millions of years. The formation of the Grand Canyon is one of my favorate examples of how people can totally ignore facts to try to push a dead theory....more on that later if you are willing to learn.