At 12:52 AM 11/18/98 EST, PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>You know, Glenn, it's like those crazy geologists. As the YEC's say, You can
>show them layers of rock strata where the fossils are in an order exactly
>opposite to what the so-called geological column is supposed to be. Yet,
they
>refuse to draw the proper conclusion--The strata are worthless as a purveyor
>of truth. And, being unwilling to draw the proper conclusion, they conclude
>that, therefore, the geological column must be true. 'It's heads I win;
Tails
>you lose.' If the fossils are rightside up, the geological column is true; if
>they are upside down, it is still true. Clearly, the geologists are working
>from a theory and do not care about the facts.
If I were you I wouldn't try to use the YEC argument on overthrusts. First
the YECs don't look at all the data that the Geologist will come back with.
I would suggest taking a look at the web page
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/othrust.htm
Here is the evidence that the YECs ignore.
The entire reason that young-earth creationists have fought against
overthrusts has traditionally been with the aim of showing that the
sediments in the overthrusted region must have been deposited in a flood.
But the field relations along these thrust faults rules out what these men
are saying. Consider the map. F is where the actual fault cuts the surface
of the earth. - is the region where the rocks are overthrust.
North
A..........................................A'
B....................F.....................B' 0 km of thrusting
---F Perpendicular to thrusting
W -----F ^
-------F |
----------F ===> direction of thrusting
C....................------------F.........C' 50 km of thrusting
----------F
------F
---F
F
The A...A' etc are the locations of the following cross-sections. A cross
section is a vertical slice through the earth along the given line. When
you cut the earth at the
location of maximum thrusting the rock layers look like:
West C 222222 C' East
22222 33333
top earth surface11111--------2 33/1111111111111111111
11111111111111111 222222 333/
22222222222 333/
22222222222222 3333/22222222222222222222222222
33333333333/
3333333333333333 / 333333333333333333333333333333333
bottom
/=fault
In the above, Layer 1,2 and 3 have been pushed on top of their corelative
strate to the east As one walks or drives north and comes to the region of
B..B' the cross section looks like:
West B 111111 B' East
1111111 11111
top earth surface11111 22 1111111111111111111
11111111111111111 222222 222222
22222222222 22222
22222222222222 222222222222222222
333333
33333333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333333
The rocks are just deformed and pushed up a bit. There is no fault and all
the rocks are in the correct depositional order.
If you go further north to A...A' the cross section is like:
West A A' East
top earth surface1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Now all the rocks are in proper order. The fact that one can find properly
deposited rocks north or south of the thrust, and then follow these same
layers into the
thrust region, disproves what Morris and Price are saying about the thrusts.
And if you walk from the back of the thrust around the north of the thrust
then to the east of the thrust. all rocks you walk on are in proper order!
>
>The analogy is not perfect; but, the point is: you have to free yourself from
>emotional viewpoints and look a little deeper.
The analogy is flawed because it assumes that the YECs know what they are
talking about and have actually examined all the data themselves.
>
>So, let's look a little more closely. The description of the Creation,
Flood,
>Tower of Babel, etc. in Gen 1-11 does not fit the scientific data--geology,
>astronomy, anthropology, archaeology. Therefore, (and I will draw the proper
>conclusion) these chapters (1/100th of the Bible, not the whole Bible by any
>means) are factually erroneous at least in part, and therefore not completely
>trustworthy (true) with regard to history and science.
Is there any mis-match between any type of history (astronomical,
geological, human) and the Bible that would convince you that the Bible
isn't true?
If there is, what is it? If not, you have divorced science from religon.
><<Now, as to the timing of the flood. there are two things that must be
>noted. You can only date this event by believing that the genealogies are
>complete. Luke 3:35-36 shows that the genealogies of Gen. 11 are not
>complete.>>
>
>Actually, you can date Gen 4 reasonably well and the tower of Babel very well
>completely apart from the genealogies. If there were no genealogies you
could
>still date them.
I would be curious as to how you do this? Flutes are found in the fossil
record back to 100,000 years, and tents are found as far back as 200,000
years (skins were hung from poles in a Neanderthal cave reference available
upon request)
And, thus the approximate date of the Flood, which lies
>between them, can be dated. Even if you just had the date of the Tower of
>Babel you would have the approximate date of the Flood because you cannot
have
>very many centuries between the two events or the one language that Noah's
>family spoke would differentiate into several languages. In less than a
>millenium, Latin became French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian; and those
>peoples were not separated by long distances. I am forwarding to you my
paper
>on the Tower of Babel; so, you can see how surely the Tower of Babel can be
>dated completely apart from genealogies.
I look forward to it.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm