evolution vs creationism (Page 22)

MJ59: Ok, good man, that

Corwin: Why did you have to bump this one, Beaver?
We put this thread out of its misery 6 years ago.

Well... for old time's sake, I'll compose a rebuttal to Blackie's above statements (which he likely won't read). Keeping in mind that this isn't really about Evolution per say, but more a question of Geology. So (Blackie) don't take this as me defending "Evolution", but merely defending the Science of Geology.

(And I do encourage you to read this, Bobby. I'm not copy/pasting, this is my own composition, and it's carefully worded to be polite and thought-provoking. You would do me an honour if you took the time to read it, perhaps even with an open mind. It's been years since I composed one of these).
-------------------------


Point one --- " it would clearly show erosion and vegetation between layers. Which is absent in all the layers"

A Geologist would beg to differ. -- Erosion -- one huge demonstration of erosion is partway up the canyon walls, called The Great Unconformity. This is a strata of "missing" layers, where the "basement rock" which is over 1.5 billion years old, is layered over with much more recent Paleozoic rock, which begins about 1/2 a billion years ago. That missing gap of hundreds of millions of years tells us that there was a lengthy period of erosion followed by newer sedimentary layers deposited above it.

A second demonstration of massive amounts of erosion is that the uppermost strata -- the youngest rock, is about 300 million years old. So there's millions of years of strata that eroded away from the top (creating a plateau). And the most obvious demonstration of erosion is the canyon itself.

Also, it should be noted that those upper Paleozoic layers were laid down when what we know of as the Colorado Plateau was the bottom of a warm shallow sea. The presence of Stramatolite fossils demonstrates this (among other evidence). The other fossils you find in these strata are exactly what you would expect for a warm shallow sea between 600 and 300 million years ago -- Trilobites, Brachiopods, and worms.

-- "vegetation between layers"
You would not expect to find fossilized "vegetation" in those strata -- it didn't really exist yet, apart from red and green algae. Simple plants like mosses and ferns were appearing on land during the Paleozoic, but these sedimentary strata in question are aquatic.
(And note, "shallow" sea -- a Biblical flood that covers the highest mountains would be anything but shallow.)


"the colorado river could not have cut the grand canyon for the very same reason Corwin gave! "

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. You're suggesting that something "other" than the Colorado River carved the canyon? And the river just conveniently moved in to occupy the gorge later?
As I've said time and again, the only explanation is that the river was there first, and carved the canyon as the plateau slowly rose from geologic upheaval. Water doesn't flow uphill. Ever.

I think you're also suggesting that the canyon was carved by massive amounts of water over a short time, with great force. The Geologist would beg to differ.
If you want to see an example of that exact kind of thing, study up on the Niagara River gorge. It was carved rapidly and catastrophically after the last ice age when an ice damn gave way and spilled an enormous super-great-lake into what it now Lake Ontario. That gorge is carved in almost a straight line, which is what you expect with rapid and catastrophic hydrodynamic forces.
The canyons of the Colorado River meander with tight twists and turns, just as only slow and steady erosion from a meandering river would do. Geologists know the difference between these two types of formation. And a catastrophic deluge of water is NOT going to be making tight twists and turns (like it's racing an Indy500 track)... it just doesn't happen that way.


"the facts of present date erosion rates state the all the present mountains would have washed into the sea in less than a million-year time"

Where the heck did you get THAT figure from?? A Geologist would beg to differ.
Let's take Mt Everest and do the math --- it's roughly 30,000 feet tall, so divide that by 1,000,000 years... so Everest should be shrinking /eroding at a rate of about 1/3rd of an inch each year? The thing is, Everest, and the Himalayas in general, and the Rockies, and the Andes, are all in the process of getting TALLER through geologic upheaval. We measure this. Everest grows roughly 2 1/2 inches per year.
Comparatively, let's look at an "ancient" mountain range -- The Appalachians in Eastern USA. They formed 480 million years ago, and at that time it was a range of lofty jagged mountains that rivaled the present day Rockies or Andes. But because of a shift in plate-tectonics, that area was no longer geologically active, and erosion began.
But... 480 million years later they're still there. Eroded down to foot-hills mind you, but according to your theory, they should have been "washed into the sea" 480 times over by now.

As long as Earth remains geologically active with it's churning molten core, and plate-tectonics continues, there will always be mountains forming in some places, and mountains eroding in other places. The ever changing face of our Earth.
----------------------------------

Now... I understand you, Blackie... I understand your motivation... 6 years later and you're still hammering out your offensive against commonly accepted scientific fact... for the sake of adhering to your literal interpretation of Genesis.
Perhaps "offensive" isn't quite the right word... you're "defending" your beliefs, that you feel are under attack... under attack by the entire scientific community.

But does it really have to be that way? ... I'll just note, that I find that if you take the 7-day Biblical Creation story, and interpret it in "figurative" terms, rather than so "literally", I find many interesting parallels with the scientific version of the Creation story. They really didn't do too bad for Bronze-Aged goat-herders. (no offense intended -- herding goats sounds like a nice peaceful existence). And with no knowledge of Science, they tried their best to figure things out. Kudos to them.

But Geology... I think I mentioned this before some years back on these forums... you (Blackie) believe the Bible to be authored by God Himself. Well, think of the Geologic layers of the Earth's crust like pages in a book... were not those pages ALSO written down by the very hand of God? And Geologists are just men who have learned to decipher and interpret those pages... to study layers of rock and tell the story of what happened.
Those "ancient scrolls" right beneath our very feet. Who could question the validity of rock layers laid down by God Himself?

In summation... this is what it always comes down to... Science endeavors to figure out "HOW"... Religion is more about figuring out "WHY". Those are two COMPLETELY different questions... and neither discipline can answer the questions of the other.
----------------------------

And on a side-note... I hope that you (Bobby) and your loved ones are doing well during these troubling times. Stay safe.