Posted on 12/04/2009 2:09:23 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Dec 3, 2009 — In the previous entry, Darwin inspired some geologists, even though he was wrong. Here are some news stories showing nature inspiring engineers with wonders right under their noses...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Should I not go to that link? :) Inquiring mind want to know before I take the leap!
how much does the uplift equal each year? 1 inch two iches? millions and millions of years to make the fossiles on the bottom of the sea and then how many years does it take to make a moutain?
LOL...and here I thought you were one of the few long-age evos capable of carrying on a good natured difference of opinion. I find that the one area that I am wrong more than any other is when I give evos (who appear friendly at first, but are seething Temple of Darwin fanatics just below the surface) the benefit of the doubt.
==Nonsense. The plutons may form relatively quickly but the magma will not cool that quickly.
Ah, but you digress. Or should I say that you are changing the subject? Or should I say you are deflecting attention away from the ignorance and outdated assumptions displayed in your first statement/question? This was your opening salvo, remember?:
"How did the granite get to the top of the mountain range in the first place under a young earth format, granite is intrusive igneous rock, meaning it came in beneath other rocks in the crust initially. It must have taken a day or two to get up at the high elevations."
Then I pointed out to you that modern science has determined that the very same granite that the long-agers assumed (without evidence) took millions of years to form, can in fact melt, segregate, ascend and emplace within a “geologically extremely rapid—perhaps even catastrophic” timeframe, well within the traditional biblical chronology.
But now you want to pretend that knew all along that granite could form quickly--even catastrophically--and now you wish to change the subject to cooling. Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you put up the best argument you can muster for the long-age cooling of granite, and I'll give the creation science argument for rapid cooling, and we'll see which one is favored by the available evidence, shall we?
==We can only assume that the rate of erosion is the same now as it was 6,000 or 100 million years back. Limestone was perched on top of this intrusive pluton suggesting that it was undersea at the time it formed.
Another typical evo/long-ager mistake. Surely you must know by now that Lyellian gradualism is being rapidly replaced by catastrophism by all sides of the origins debate (to include granite formation)?
Finally, I was really looking forward to a cordial discussion/debate with you, but my hopes were dimmed by your concluding remarks. Perhaps we can both let bygones be bygones and agree to conduct ourselves like gentelmen for the rest of the discussion? Just a thought--GGG
What about your good Dr. who writes that the earth is billions of years old? Is he lying in his professional papers?
For those who are interesting in Dr. Snelling’s response to the accusations emanating from “hard-line” and “blinkered” evolutionists, please click the following link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
Courtesy Ping to Metmom.
There is a decided lack of that going around. Thank you.
No problem, my FRiend. :)
I used to CP her all the time but one time I forgot and she went into a mouth-breathing tirade. If she is so immature as that I quit giving her CPs.
Sounds like he’s run into a few FRevos.
Easy example to show that YECers (also known as Yabba Dabba Doers) are full of it.
The Pinnacles national monument is half an extinct volcano that is located about 195 miles north of Los Angeles in San Benito County. Where is the other half? -in Los Angeles County.The San Andreas fault bisected it, with one half on each plate.
Now if the earth is 6000 years old, Pinnacles would have had to move approximately an average of 175-200 feet per year.
The Pinnacles is approximately 20-22 million years old. Using this date, it has moved about an average of one inch/year, which is the rate currently seen on the San Andreas and other nearby faults, about the rate your fingernails grow.
The 1906 SF quake moved the plates about 10 feet. So to get the 175-200 feet per year there would have to be 17-20 SF quakes EVERY YEAR since the fault formed. This has not happened.
Ergo, creationists are full of it.
Which Dr. Snelling are you referring to?
Mountain formation can be geologically quick but some of the youngest mountains, the Himalayas still began their formation 70 to 50 million year ago depending on whether you start counting at the collision of the two plates or the beginning of the uplift.
The earth is good at recycling rocks as the plates move but there are still large Precambrian shields of ancient rock in Canada, Africa and Antarctica. Dating rocks can be done by layering, fossils, radiometric dating and reading the changes in magnetic inclination. The magnetic poles have switched ever few hundred thousand years.
Now one thing that angers me is using the club of authority to validate beliefs. You are welcome to your beliefs as long as they are not passed of as science validated. I have religious beliefs and they can in no way be validated in a test tube. I will leave the beheading of nonbelievers to the Muslims.
"The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not."
I’m not so hopeful.
Psalm 2:1-3 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”
It’s interesting, to say the least, that someone can look at all this design in nature and still deny that it was created or even as little as acknowledging that intelligence was responsible for it, and yet find the design so useful that it’s copied for our use.
Thanks for the ping!
It's interesting that you refer to the Intelligent Designer and not to God.
By Dr. Ritchie:
POSTSCRIPT
Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart - Noah’s Flood - The Geological Case For and Against.
I’ve repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.
For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.
In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.