How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument

[otseng]

Could you please give a summary, perhaps in point form, of the events prior to and as a consequence of the biblical flood, that would have ultimately produced the Grand Canyon as we have it now.

As mentioned, I will be presenting the FM and answering the questions later.

You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when?

Yes, I have the answers from a FM perspective. But, I'm giving you all the chance first to answer the questions. I will later repost all the questions and then you can give a summary answer to address all the questions. I will then do the same.

I will soon be posting all the questions to allow SG proponents to answer them in point form and I will do the same.

That's not to say I refuse to answer.

Why not start a (more appropriate) thread to present your flood-scenario that we can address instead of just tossing question after question at us?

Still it's not answering the question. It is not a trick question or a complicated question. Why not answer the question here and then we can move on in this thread? If nobody is able to answer it, that's fine too. We can then just agree SG has no answer to this question.

Otseng, chum. Your post above wasn't too specific other than the Grand canyon which has been answered before and i answered again. The appearance of erosion, the planing off the tilted strata, the gradual erosion of the hard rock - Slowly - by the river - all answered and indicated deep time, not a global flood.

Again, this erosion of creating the canyon is after all the layers have been deposited. What evidence is there in the strata that signify there has been similar erosion of canyon creation all the way down to the basement?

Still in denial about the Grand Canyon, you refer to lens -shaped deposits or formations without saying why these represent Flood - geology rather than Deep -time geology, but I suppose we'll have to look at that

What denial are you talking about? What I do deny is the Surprise Canyon Formation is any evidence of erosion. If you disagree, please present your argument.

Austin and Woodmorappe come up notably in the (AiG) material presented as evidence for the Noachian Flood. Again, Though the above was from a different geological site, Talk Origins refutes many of these creationists claims, particularly the Flood and specifically the ones referencing the Grand Canyon. It doesn't take long to look up these refutations.

I have not even cited any creationist material. So, not sure how this is even relevant.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

If you really want to talk about the Scablands, we could go into that as well. But, that would generate probably dozens of more pages in this thread.

What at first appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of the science has crossed over into active denial. When asked to refer to scientific sources yourself, your response has repeatedly been to denigrate science as an endeavor. It's clear now that one of the important (and perhaps most important), but unstated premises of your argument is that science itself is corrupt and dishonest. With that recognition, I concede the debate. If we treat as axiomatic that science is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation, then I agree that the Flood is as reasonable an explanation as that presented by the most expert geologist.

First, please stop putting words in my mouth. As we both agree, I've never stated "lol, nope". And I've also never implied it even in a figurative sense. I've also never said (or even figuratively implied) science is corrupt or dishonest or "is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation".

When you say refer to scientific sources, basically you're asking for me to only refer to SG sources, because it's highly doubtful any creationist journal will be considered valid. So, this is asking to play cards with only the cards that you chose to play with. All the evidence I've provided are from secular sources and are empirically verifiable. Rejecting this is simply stacking the deck.

The concept of "unconformities" writ large can represent either erosion or periods without deposition that are nonetheless uneroded, but it is not "entirely possible" that any given unconformity could have any explanation whatever. Did you make that up or do you have a credible source that also makes that claim?

What I mean by "entirely possible" is it is possible all the unconformities in the Grand Canyon are simply lack of deposition. Do you disagree with this?

You assert in your later post that the geological explanations are ad hoc, but have you actually examined those explanations?

Actually I have. And we can look into the ad hoc nature when you answer the questions:

How can one determine if an unconformity is due to lack of deposition or due to erosion?
Why or how can erosion in an unconformity result in a layer parallel to the one below it?
If erosion occurred, was the layer above sea level when it occurred?
If it was above sea level, how did it become above sea level?

You've described it as "flat," yet features that are obviously not flat (and obviously old, being covered by still more old rock) are dismissed as "sinkholes."

The context of the SCF was you pointed that out as an example of erosion, not flatness. Do you still propose it is an example of erosion?

I'm asking what, to you, "practically no erosion" means because that statement is false in any way I can reasonably think to interpret it.

From "Paleozoic vertebrate paleontology of Grand Canyon National Park: research history, resources and potential" (starting on p. 105 of this publication that I linked in an earlier post; quote is on p. 109):

The Surprise Canyon Formation was originally divided into a lower unit consisting of fluvial clastics and an upper marine unit composed of siltstones and limestones (Billingsley and Beus, 1985). Subsequent studies indicated the presence of three units: a lower fluvial chert pebble conglomerate interbedded with coarse- to fine grained redbrown sandstone and siltstone mainly of terrestrial origin; a middle marine unit of grey-yellow or reddish-brown, coarsely crystalline, thin-bedded limestone separated from the lower unit by an erosional unconformity; and an upper marine unit of reddish-brown, calcareous siltstone, with minor limestone.

As for the flatness of SCF, sure, it's not flat. But, again, it is an exception, not a rule. Even looking at your graphical drawing, the layers are depicted as generally flat. Do you disagree with this?

What at first appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of the science has crossed over into active denial.

Active denial of what? That the SCF disproves the pattern of flat layers?

One side is presenting ideas AND sources to back the ideas up which can be further researched. The other side is presenting ideas with no sources to research.

This is not completely correct. Actually, I have not yet even presented the FM. The only model for discussion right now is SG and how it explains the sedimentary pattern. And what ideas are you talking about that is proposed by SG to explain the sedimentary strata pattern?

[brunumb]

Could you please give a summary, perhaps in point form, of the events prior to and as a consequence of the biblical flood, that would have ultimately produced the Grand Canyon as we have it now.

As mentioned, I will be presenting the FM and answering the questions later.

Thank you. I await your response with eager anticipation.

[TRANSPONDER]

Could you please give a summary, perhaps in point form, of the events prior to and as a consequence of the biblical flood, that would have ultimately produced the Grand Canyon as we have it now.

As mentioned, I will be presenting the FM and answering the questions later.

You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when?

Yes, I have the answers from a FM perspective. But, I'm giving you all the chance first to answer the questions. I will later repost all the questions and then you can give a summary answer to address all the questions. I will then do the same.

I will soon be posting all the questions to allow SG proponents to answer them in point form and I will do the same.

That's not to say I refuse to answer.

Why not start a (more appropriate) thread to present your flood-scenario that we can address instead of just tossing question after question at us?

Still it's not answering the question. It is not a trick question or a complicated question. Why not answer the question here and then we can move on in this thread? If nobody is able to answer it, that's fine too. We can then just agree SG has no answer to this question.

Otseng, chum. Your post above wasn't too specific other than the Grand canyon which has been answered before and i answered again. The appearance of erosion, the planing off the tilted strata, the gradual erosion of the hard rock - Slowly - by the river - all answered and indicated deep time, not a global flood.

Again, this erosion of creating the canyon is after all the layers have been deposited. What evidence is there in the strata that signify there has been similar erosion of canyon creation all the way down to the basement?

Still in denial about the Grand Canyon, you refer to lens -shaped deposits or formations without saying why these represent Flood - geology rather than Deep -time geology, but I suppose we'll have to look at that

What denial are you talking about? What I do deny is the Surprise Canyon Formation is any evidence of erosion. If you disagree, please present your argument.

Austin and Woodmorappe come up notably in the (AiG) material presented as evidence for the Noachian Flood. Again, Though the above was from a different geological site, Talk Origins refutes many of these creationists claims, particularly the Flood and specifically the ones referencing the Grand Canyon. It doesn't take long to look up these refutations.

I have not even cited any creationist material. So, not sure how this is even relevant.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

If you really want to talk about the Scablands, we could go into that as well. But, that would generate probably dozens of more pages in this thread.

What at first appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of the science has crossed over into active denial. When asked to refer to scientific sources yourself, your response has repeatedly been to denigrate science as an endeavor. It's clear now that one of the important (and perhaps most important), but unstated premises of your argument is that science itself is corrupt and dishonest. With that recognition, I concede the debate. If we treat as axiomatic that science is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation, then I agree that the Flood is as reasonable an explanation as that presented by the most expert geologist.

First, please stop putting words in my mouth. As we both agree, I've never stated "lol, nope". And I've also never implied it even in a figurative sense. I've also never said (or even figuratively implied) science is corrupt or dishonest or "is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation".

When you say refer to scientific sources, basically you're asking for me to only refer to SG sources, because it's highly doubtful any creationist journal will be considered valid. So, this is asking to play cards with only the cards that you chose to play with. All the evidence I've provided are from secular sources and are empirically verifiable. Rejecting this is simply stacking the deck.

The concept of "unconformities" writ large can represent either erosion or periods without deposition that are nonetheless uneroded, but it is not "entirely possible" that any given unconformity could have any explanation whatever. Did you make that up or do you have a credible source that also makes that claim?

What I mean by "entirely possible" is it is possible all the unconformities in the Grand Canyon are simply lack of deposition. Do you disagree with this?

You assert in your later post that the geological explanations are ad hoc, but have you actually examined those explanations?

Actually I have. And we can look into the ad hoc nature when you answer the questions:

How can one determine if an unconformity is due to lack of deposition or due to erosion?
Why or how can erosion in an unconformity result in a layer parallel to the one below it?
If erosion occurred, was the layer above sea level when it occurred?
If it was above sea level, how did it become above sea level?

You've described it as "flat," yet features that are obviously not flat (and obviously old, being covered by still more old rock) are dismissed as "sinkholes."

The context of the SCF was you pointed that out as an example of erosion, not flatness. Do you still propose it is an example of erosion?

I'm asking what, to you, "practically no erosion" means because that statement is false in any way I can reasonably think to interpret it.

From "Paleozoic vertebrate paleontology of Grand Canyon National Park: research history, resources and potential" (starting on p. 105 of this publication that I linked in an earlier post; quote is on p. 109):

The Surprise Canyon Formation was originally divided into a lower unit consisting of fluvial clastics and an upper marine unit composed of siltstones and limestones (Billingsley and Beus, 1985). Subsequent studies indicated the presence of three units: a lower fluvial chert pebble conglomerate interbedded with coarse- to fine grained redbrown sandstone and siltstone mainly of terrestrial origin; a middle marine unit of grey-yellow or reddish-brown, coarsely crystalline, thin-bedded limestone separated from the lower unit by an erosional unconformity; and an upper marine unit of reddish-brown, calcareous siltstone, with minor limestone.

As for the flatness of SCF, sure, it's not flat. But, again, it is an exception, not a rule. Even looking at your graphical drawing, the layers are depicted as generally flat. Do you disagree with this?

What at first appeared to be a simple misunderstanding of the science has crossed over into active denial.

Active denial of what? That the SCF disproves the pattern of flat layers?

One side is presenting ideas AND sources to back the ideas up which can be further researched. The other side is presenting ideas with no sources to research.

This is not completely correct. Actually, I have not yet even presented the FM. The only model for discussion right now is SG and how it explains the sedimentary pattern. And what ideas are you talking about that is proposed by SG to explain the sedimentary strata pattern?

These questions have broadly been answered, like explaining the sedimentary patters in terms of erosion, either by water or weather. Where you have been specific as in particular formations in the Grand Canyon, you have been answered. It is a trick question and complicated to ask effectively for a global explanation of all the world geology in Deep Time (or Standard Model as you say) terms. Very well it's all laid down as water -laid or weather eroded forces, raised up by subduct effects and tilted or broken by tectonic plate movements. That's all been explained before, but you still seem to be asking for general explanations without explaining why they aren't good enough, except in particular Grand Canyon formations, which have been shown to Not support a flood scenario.

As to Creationist material, are you trying tell us you worked all these particular objections out yourself rather than getting them from Creationist websites or books? Not that you can't do that, but don't act all hurt and aggrieved because I suggested that's where you got your material.I'm quite open that I have to consult Talk Origins etc.

"Again, this erosion of creating the canyon is after all the layers have been deposited. What evidence is there in the strata that signify there has been similar erosion of canyon creation all the way down to the basement?"

That is incoherent but looks like a strawman argument; asserting that SG erosion would have to cut all the way to the basement - of course it wouldn't. A river cutting through the later layers is what the 6 million years of erosion would do, and why should it have eroded all the way to the 'basement'? In enough million years it no doubt would do so. But what answer do you give to the meanders showing that it wasn't caused by a flood? None, you just assert that you will explain later.

"If you really want to talk about the Scablands, we could go into that as well. But, that would generate probably dozens of more pages in this thread." It is up to you whether you want to debate this or any other geological feature, but that was just part of an explanation posted to one of your questions. Since you are just picking on mention of 'the scablands', can I take it that the rest of your question was answered?

"What denial are you talking about? What I do deny is the Surprise Canyon Formation is any evidence of erosion. If you disagree, please present your argument." That looks like another strawman You don't (and didn't) deny erosion, as such, but argued (or so I remember) that the Grand Canyon erosion looks like Flood Erosion rather than long time weather - erosion. Though I don't recall that you explained how and why it would look look different. Would you like to explain how it would appear different?

You seem to have some problem with the idea that other kinds of erosion (other than water - laid) would produce flat layers. Gravity (and weather -distribution) would ensure that erosion would flatten out either where it is or slide down a mountain -slope to a flat area, if there is a mountain being eroded. Just why is the idea of erosion resulting in a flat strata a problem for you or the Standard Geology model? So far I've only seen your loose assertions that this is a problem for the SG and that it doesn't look (with pictures) like Deep time erosion to you. Why not? Are we going to get any explanations other than querying particular Grand Canyon formations (which have been shown to be a problem for Flood -geology, but not for Deep time geology), and which, since you have not rebutted them but raised other points, you presumably accept my replies.

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear your explanation why Scientific explanation of Geological features researched by thousands of experts over a century or so are 'ad hoc' explanations, according to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

If we treat as axiomatic that science is intellectually bankrupt on a scale that renders no scientific conclusion more trustworthy than armchair theological speculation, then I agree that the Flood is as reasonable an explanation as that presented by the most expert geologist.

I've been following along, and this quote sums it up nicely. If I could give 10 thumbs and 10 toes up I would

One side is presenting ideas AND sources to back the ideas up which can be further researched. The other side is presenting ideas with no sources to research.

I guess this is what happens when one tries to have a debate involving science in the apologetics subforum.

Thanks to ALL who have participated, if nothing else I learned a little more about geology. Dang you folks for making me learn stuff when I was just trying to watch people argue!!

You have no idea of how these can go on. It's why debating established science was banned on my previous board and those doing science -denial told to argue it on the science -forum. That's why I had to say frankly that those doing science denial (which denying deep -time geology is doing) have a job of work to do.

And this isn't the way to do it

otseng posted " Up to now, I would only claim the photographs represents sites that we see in the photographs I've presented. But, I will now extend the claim and make a prediction. The pattern that I speak about should apply to any place around the world that has sedimentary layers. That is, all sedimentary strata (whether we've yet seen them or not), should exhibit the pattern of relatively little geologic activity in the layers and then after all the layers are deposited would we see major geologic activity.
If your argument for the Flood is independent of science, say that now and I'll know that I'm not the intended audience. If it's not, reference the data.
Everything I've presented is emperical evidence that anyone can verify for themselves. All sources I've used are from secular sources. And I have not appealed to faith or even the Bible. So, not sure what you mean about my arguments are independent of science. If this is not science, what is?"

Science is, frankly. After citing pictures that look (to him) like evidence of a flood, and interpreting the geology (mostly flat tectonic plates with flat strata and faulting or mountain building at areas of stress) as Flood -geology 'emperical (sic) evidence') I gather, and appealing to the layman audience to look and say 'Yeah, looks like Flood geology to me'. That is not science but what we call 'pseudo -science'. e.g like Daianiken's alien technology cult.

[otseng]

These questions have broadly been answered, like explaining the sedimentary patters in terms of erosion, either by water or weather. Where you have been specific as in particular formations in the Grand Canyon, you have been answered. It is a trick question and complicated to ask effectively for a global explanation of all the world geology in Deep Time (or Standard Model as you say) terms.

You say at the same time the questions have been answered and also it is a trick question and cannot be answered. This does not make logical sense.

Very well it's all laid down as water -laid or weather eroded forces, raised up by subduct effects and tilted or broken by tectonic plate movements. That's all been explained before, but you still seem to be asking for general explanations without explaining why they aren't good enough, except in particular Grand Canyon formations, which have been shown to Not support a flood scenario.

This is not answering the questions about the strata pattern. If you claim there's been hundreds of millions of years of erosion, subduction, tilting, tectonic plate movement, there should be massive evidence of this in the sedimentary strata. Yet, there is relatively few. Yes, the Great Unconformity is an example of this in the Grand Canyon. But, why one one angular unconformity in the billion plus year history? If only one occurs every million years, we should see on the order of a thousand such examples. If there's been tilting, we should see non-parallel layering throughout the strata. Yet, the pattern is all layers are parallel. If there's tectonic plate movement, we should see staggered faults throughout the strata. Even if it only occurs once in a few million years, we should see the evidence in the strata through hundreds of staggered faults.

Not that you can't do that, but don't act all hurt and aggrieved because I suggested that's where you got your material.I'm quite open that I have to consult Talk Origins etc.

Who said I'm hurt or aggrieved? Simply pointing out you posting material that is not relevant does not signify I'm hurt.

As to Creationist material, are you trying tell us you worked all these particular objections out yourself rather than getting them from Creationist websites or books?

Can you point to any creationist site where it discusses the sedimentary pattern that we are discussing here? If you can, then it would be relevant.

"Again, this erosion of creating the canyon is after all the layers have been deposited. What evidence is there in the strata that signify there has been similar erosion of canyon creation all the way down to the basement?"

That is incoherent but looks like a strawman argument; asserting that SG erosion would have to cut all the way to the basement - of course it wouldn't. A river cutting through the later layers is what the 6 million years of erosion would do, and why should it have eroded all the way to the 'basement'? In enough million years it no doubt would do so.

It's not incoherent because the question is illogical, but because SG cannot explain it.

If it takes 6 million years to cut through to the basement, that is more than enough time for erosion to the basement to have happened in any of the lower layers.

It's not a strawman because obviously cutting down to the basement has occurred in the GC since that's what we see now. The question is why has this not also occurred in the past? Another way of looking at it. In the billion+ year history of the GC, this massive erosion has only happened once. And it was the final event after all the layers were deposited. And this is not isolated to the GC. It is evidenced in canyons and mesas throughout the world.

Since you are just picking on mention of 'the scablands', can I take it that the rest of your question was answered?

No, I don't see what it is trying to answer since there is no reference to which question I've posed. What is your post trying to answer?

"What denial are you talking about? What I do deny is the Surprise Canyon Formation is any evidence of erosion. If you disagree, please present your argument."

That looks like another strawman You don't (and didn't) deny erosion, as such, but argued (or so I remember) that the Grand Canyon erosion looks like Flood Erosion rather than long time weather - erosion. Though I don't recall that you explained how and why it would look look different. Would you like to explain how it would appear different?

I was talking specifically about the Surprise Canyon Formation. Do you disagree with my statement that the Surprise Canyon Formation is not evidence of erosion?

You seem to have some problem with the idea that other kinds of erosion (other than water - laid) would produce flat layers.

Yes, I do have that problem. Where do we see erosion that has caused flat erosion so that it becomes parallel with the layer below it?

Just why is the idea of erosion resulting in a flat strata a problem for you or the Standard Geology model?

This is another example of an ad hoc explanation. When we see water erosion happening now, do you expect the final result to be a flat strata, or more like a stream/river pattern?

since you have not rebutted them but raised other points, you presumably accept my replies.

Your replies have not answered the basic question of the explanation of the sedimentary pattern. Since you and Difflugia do not agree the pattern actually exists, I have to now argue that the pattern does exist. Explaining this pattern is the crux of my argument that I started off the flood discussion with in post 237. If we cannot agree the pattern exists, then we cannot compare the SG and FM on which one has better explanatory power.

We see parallel layers and then massive erosion after the layers were deposited. This pattern is so common we don't even think twice about it. But, if you think about it, what would cause this pattern? Why would layers be parallel? Where did the sediment come from to form successive layers? Why didn't erosion occur while these layers were formed? What caused the erosion to expose the strata only after all these layers were formed?

Are we going to get any explanations other than querying particular Grand Canyon formations

The Grand Canyon is only one data point. I've also presented major canyons of the world, mountains around the world, buttes and mesas. I could go on and present more data points if necessary.

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear your explanation why Scientific explanation of Geological features researched by thousands of experts over a century or so are 'ad hoc' explanations, according to you.

This is a rabbit trail I think we will need to explore. I'll create a post about this later.

[TRANSPONDER]

These questions have broadly been answered, like explaining the sedimentary patters in terms of erosion, either by water or weather. Where you have been specific as in particular formations in the Grand Canyon, you have been answered. It is a trick question and complicated to ask effectively for a global explanation of all the world geology in Deep Time (or Standard Model as you say) terms.

You say at the same time the questions have been answered and also it is a trick question and cannot be answered. This does not make logical sense.

Very well it's all laid down as water -laid or weather eroded forces, raised up by subduct effects and tilted or broken by tectonic plate movements. That's all been explained before, but you still seem to be asking for general explanations without explaining why they aren't good enough, except in particular Grand Canyon formations, which have been shown to Not support a flood scenario.

This is not answering the questions about the strata pattern. If you claim there's been hundreds of millions of years of erosion, subduction, tilting, tectonic plate movement, there should be massive evidence of this in the sedimentary strata. Yet, there is relatively few. Yes, the Great Unconformity is an example of this in the Grand Canyon. But, why one one angular unconformity in the billion plus year history? If only one occurs every million years, we should see on the order of a thousand such examples. If there's been tilting, we should see non-parallel layering throughout the strata. Yet, the pattern is all layers are parallel. If there's tectonic plate movement, we should see staggered faults throughout the strata. Even if it only occurs once in a few million years, we should see the evidence in the strata through hundreds of staggered faults.

Not that you can't do that, but don't act all hurt and aggrieved because I suggested that's where you got your material.I'm quite open that I have to consult Talk Origins etc.

Who said I'm hurt or aggrieved? Simply pointing out you posting material that is not relevant does not signify I'm hurt.

As to Creationist material, are you trying tell us you worked all these particular objections out yourself rather than getting them from Creationist websites or books?

Can you point to any creationist site where it discusses the sedimentary pattern that we are discussing here? If you can, then it would be relevant.

"Again, this erosion of creating the canyon is after all the layers have been deposited. What evidence is there in the strata that signify there has been similar erosion of canyon creation all the way down to the basement?"

That is incoherent but looks like a strawman argument; asserting that SG erosion would have to cut all the way to the basement - of course it wouldn't. A river cutting through the later layers is what the 6 million years of erosion would do, and why should it have eroded all the way to the 'basement'? In enough million years it no doubt would do so.

It's not incoherent because the question is illogical, but because SG cannot explain it.

If it takes 6 million years to cut through to the basement, that is more than enough time for erosion to the basement to have happened in any of the lower layers.

It's not a strawman because obviously cutting down to the basement has occurred in the GC since that's what we see now. The question is why has this not also occurred in the past? Another way of looking at it. In the billion+ year history of the GC, this massive erosion has only happened once. And it was the final event after all the layers were deposited. And this is not isolated to the GC. It is evidenced in canyons and mesas throughout the world.

Since you are just picking on mention of 'the scablands', can I take it that the rest of your question was answered?

No, I don't see what it is trying to answer since there is no reference to which question I've posed. What is your post trying to answer?

"What denial are you talking about? What I do deny is the Surprise Canyon Formation is any evidence of erosion. If you disagree, please present your argument."

That looks like another strawman You don't (and didn't) deny erosion, as such, but argued (or so I remember) that the Grand Canyon erosion looks like Flood Erosion rather than long time weather - erosion. Though I don't recall that you explained how and why it would look look different. Would you like to explain how it would appear different?

I was talking specifically about the Surprise Canyon Formation. Do you disagree with my statement that the Surprise Canyon Formation is not evidence of erosion?

You seem to have some problem with the idea that other kinds of erosion (other than water - laid) would produce flat layers.

Yes, I do have that problem. Where do we see erosion that has caused flat erosion so that it becomes parallel with the layer below it?

Just why is the idea of erosion resulting in a flat strata a problem for you or the Standard Geology model?

This is another example of an ad hoc explanation. When we see water erosion happening now, do you expect the final result to be a flat strata, or more like a stream/river pattern?

since you have not rebutted them but raised other points, you presumably accept my replies.

Your replies have not answered the basic question of the explanation of the sedimentary pattern. Since you and Difflugia do not agree the pattern actually exists, I have to now argue that the pattern does exist. Explaining this pattern is the crux of my argument that I started off the flood discussion with in post 237. If we cannot agree the pattern exists, then we cannot compare the SG and FM on which one has better explanatory power.

We see parallel layers and then massive erosion after the layers were deposited. This pattern is so common we don't even think twice about it. But, if you think about it, what would cause this pattern? Why would layers be parallel? Where did the sediment come from to form successive layers? Why didn't erosion occur while these layers were formed? What caused the erosion to expose the strata only after all these layers were formed?

Are we going to get any explanations other than querying particular Grand Canyon formations

The Grand Canyon is only one data point. I've also presented major canyons of the world, mountains around the world, buttes and mesas. I could go on and present more data points if necessary.

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear your explanation why Scientific explanation of Geological features researched by thousands of experts over a century or so are 'ad hoc' explanations, according to you.

This is a rabbit trail I think we will need to explore. I'll create a post about this later.

You are altering what I said - i said your question about global geology had been broadly answered and that it was a trick question and complicated, not unanswrable. I tried to find a response looking at overall geology not looking like the result of a global Flood. You ignored that and just asked whether I wanted to discuss the scablands in particular.

Deep time Geology or Standard Model, if you prefer does explain the example you gave of faulting not going all the way down. You ignored the answer, protested at my wording and restated the question that had been answered. Raised strata with a fault in would not have the fault going to the 'basement' if new igneous rocks had raised the strata and hardened beneath. I get your idea.You think that strata is not raised up and tectonic plates just float about and thus any faults should go all the way down. But if sea -bed strata(for instance) are raised above sea level, it's clear that new rocks have pushed it up from beneath. Also you seem to have changed the argument. As I recall you were arguing that Faulting should go down to the basement, not that river - erosion (over 6 million years) should have cut down to the basement. But in the case of the Grans Canyon, the river has done that. It cut through the metamorphic rock and into the basal rocks, so far as I can tell.

You make a claim about tilted strata and such and argue that there should be a lot more if the earth was millions of years old. But you have also asked why there are so many level strata and that was answered. Faulting and strata deformation does not happen everywhere all the time, but mainly where tectonic plates collide. Otherwise they may get raised, lowered or eroded. There are obviously a lot of mountain ranges. I would expect there to be a lot of tilted and folded strata in the newer ranges (the old ones may be raised up level strata eroded away). So on what basis do you claim that there isn't as much tilted strata as there ought to be?

Are you seriously claiming that there are no ancient river -cut canyons seen in old geology? You say yourself that there are similar canyons today. And didn't I post something on the lens -formations (surprise canyon formation) that showed them to be eroded, and in a way that fitted deep time geology rather than a global Flood? And you are being crafty by trying to get me to deny signs of erosion.The point is that you have to explain why (as you say) these features look like Flood erosion rather than normal.The bit I posted on the lens formations explained that.

And yes, erosion by wind, weather,water erosion such as streams will tend to form level beds. Do show me a stream (unless it's running downhill) or lake or even sea - bed that isn't level. You mention that you give examples from all over but what you have done so far is to post arguments about the Grans Canyon particular formations (the ones that look familiar from Creationist sites) and make some sweeping generalisations about global geology and post some pictures with 'That looks to me like a Flood did it'. Plus appeal to 'anyone else would agree with me' or words to that effect.

"quote]Just why is the idea of erosion resulting in a flat strata a problem for you or the Standard Geology model? [/quote]

This is another example of an ad hoc explanation. When we see water erosion happening now, do you expect the final result to be a flat strata, or more like a stream/river pattern?"
I'm quoting this bit as it's an example of you apparently dismissing the conclusions of geological science (that flat strata does not evidence a global flood) as 'ad hoc'. Science is based on research,discussion and peer review, and 'ad hoc' only makes sense if you are accusing geological science of making excuses up to dismiss Flood -geology arguments. Or did you mean to say something else? I look forward to the post that you promise 'later'.

I said that you acted all aggrieved and hurt because you jumped on my observation that some of your arguments looked like they came from creationist websites. If if you didn't take offence at that, why mention it? There's nothing wrong in referencing existing arguments. I can reference Aig, which quotes from Austin and Woodmorappe which have the arguments you raised because the answers to those referenced the sources. The argument text even looked familiar to me when I read it. Are you telling me that you referenced no material and this is all you own research?

[TRANSPONDER]

I had a quick search on whether the colorado river in the Grand canyon 'goes down to the basement' as otseng put it.

The Colorado River has been carving away rock for the past five to six million years. Remember, the oldest rocks in Grand Canyon are 1.8 billion years old. The canyon is much younger than the rocks through which it winds.

The oldest rocks 1.8 billion years old sound like the basic original rocks, though the river may only be down to the metamorphic layer. But we aren't talking about faulting going down to the mantle and even the old faults needn't necessarily nowadays have to go all the way down to the mantle.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's a bit on buried ancient valleys though it seems to be a relatively new study.

Good old Wiki had a good summary (extract) "Buried valleys are created when ancient river or stream valleys are present that predate the most recent glaciation, and since have been filled with glacial till and/or outwash.[5] In the Pleistocene, advancement and retreat of glaciers carved out the preexisting valleys, and deposited the material that had accumulated in the glacier by the melting of either the glacial outwash or the melting of the ice that composed the glacier itself. Buried valleys are traditionally V- or U-shaped due to the natural shape of valleys, but buried valleys can exhibit different shapes if there were any sort of erosional events after the glacier had finished retreating"

Thus it seems that we have old river cut valleys mow buried under later strata (Glacially deposited seems to be common. Along with otseng's mention of other canyons existing today,we have evidence of old 'canyons' buried by later deposits.

Now I can anticipate an excuse popping up 'well, these were buried by the Flood -deposits'. But I'd argue that is the world was only a few thousand years old, those pre flood- deposit river -cut valleys shouldn't be there at all. Which I gather is the argument that otseng was making.

[otseng]

Incidentally, I'm interested to hear your explanation why Scientific explanation of Geological features researched by thousands of experts over a century or so are 'ad hoc' explanations, according to you.

There are two aspects to SG - one is describing things and another is explaining origins. SG is good at the former, but poor at the latter. It can describe what is the chemical composition of rocks and what is in rock layers. But, it cannot adequately explain why the rock layers exhibit a global pattern. And to explain origin, it often has to employ ad hoc explanations. Unconformities is one such example.

I've asked these questions about unconformities and nobody has attempted to answer them:

How can one determine if an unconformity is due to lack of deposition or due to erosion?
Why or how can erosion in an unconformity result in a layer parallel to the one below it?
If erosion occurred, was the layer above sea level when it occurred?
If it was above sea level, how did it become above sea level?

In the Grand Canyon, there are 14 major unconformities and countless minor unconformities. For layers that experienced deposition, that layer must've been below sea level. For layers that experienced erosion, the layer must've been above sea level.

The mechanism for entire continents being raised up is (as I understand it - I am no geology expert) continental plate tectonics and subduct movement of the earth's mantle. That is, entire land areas can raised up and it is not surprising if entire level areas are raised, still more or less level.

So, the entire area of the Grand Canyon was raised and lowered innumerable times to form all the unconformities that exist. And, all the raising and lowering was able to maintain the parallel layers without any folding or faulting or tilting. It's like the entire Grand Canyon has been raised up and down on a giant elevator throughout its entire history. But, this is not just for the GC, but for all the sedimentary strata around the world. There does not exist anyplace on earth where there is no unconformity in the strata. So, at all these places, areas with sedimentary layers have been raised and lowered throughout its formation. Shouldn't we expect to see massive numbers of faults, folding, tilting throughout all the stratas with such continuous geologic activity? Yet, the predominant geologic activity claimed by SG is in the missing layers at the unconformities. That is an ad hoc answer.

To demonstrate it, how can one tell visually where are the unconformities? You cannot.



The only way to identify an unconformity in this picture is by someone telling you where are the unconformities. And that person needs to know the supposed age of the layers. And if there's an unconformity, there's a chance it's there by erosion. I argue this is not evidence that the strata has experienced numerous erosion in the strata. It assumes deep time is true, assumes what is the correct age of the layers, and assumes it was the result of erosion and not lack of deposition. So, from the photographic evidence itself, there is no evidence of erosion occurring in the layers, only deposition. There is only argumentation of an ad hoc nature that injects answers into what we see.

How can "thousands of experts over a century" possibly have the wrong view? It happens all the time. Science is not a static field, but theories come and goes. One of the longest lasting theories was the geocentric model of the universe. In the 4th century BC, most educated Greeks believed in the geocentric model. And it was commonly accepted to be true for over 1500 years. We can look back and scoff at them for believing it, but they actually had empirical evidence to support their view. The Greeks were among the most highly educated civilizations in human history. Even to this point, their influence still impacts us. Most of all scientific terms we use have a Greek basis. The Greek philosophers still have an impact in areas of modern science and philosophy. And their belief in the geocentric model was grounded in evidence and logic. It also had good explanatory power, but only because they added ad hoc explanations to it. And by adding ad hoc explanations, it could explain all planetary motion, including retrograde motion. Eventually heliocentrism replaced geocentrism because it did not require adding ad hoc explanations.

One reason we hold to incorrect ideas for so long is we are all prone to confirmation bias. And the fundamental problem is we cannot see our own confirmation bias, esp if we believe we do not have confirmation bias. Saying we do not have confirmation bias is itself proof we have confirmation bias. And with those that know they have confirmation bias, it is even rarer for those that would admit to it.

To objectively test if we have confirmation bias and if what we believe is wrong is the presence of cascading ad hoc answers. If ad hoc answers are repeatedly brought up, even in areas of science, then most likely confirmation bias is at play and the idea is false. The more ad hoc answers are introduced, the more the idea is likely to be false.

A great example of this is the doctrine of inerrancy. I at one point subscribed to this. And then as I started to study it, answers to objections to the doctrine seemed too ad hoc to me. And then after reading the Chicago statement (the definitive definition for the doctrine of inerrancy), the ultimate ad hoc answer was proposed in that inerrancy only applied to the original manuscripts. And since no original manuscript exists, it was an ad hoc answer.

Because of a mountain of ad hoc answers undergird a belief, it is unfalsifiable. Nothing can prove it wrong because ad hoc responses can answer it all. The person who holds the belief feels the belief is absolute truth and unassailable. But, they fail to realize it is only upheld by confirmation bias.

Deep time geology is in the same boat. The presence of ad hoc answers reveal confirmation bias is at play. Answers to questions are just made up without any empirical justification to uphold the theory. Circular arguments are made. Instead of looking at the evidence, there is questioning the credentials of anyone who attacks the theory. Ad hom comments are made. Questions are dodged. Irrelevant points are made to attempt to side track the issue. Arguing about definitions of basic terms. Making false accusations. If a belief is true, there is no need for any of these. Instead, there should be a straight-forward presentation and defense of the theory. But, the presence of these reveal confirmation bias is at play.

Skeptics like to think themselves as free-thinkers. I challenge you. Are you able to be skeptical of something you believe to be true? Or are you only skeptical of something you already believe to be false? If you cannot be skeptical of what you believe to be true, then what makes you a skeptic?

I do consider myself a skeptic. And I'm willing to be skeptical of Christian beliefs, even with the doctrine of inerrancy. Thousands of theologians who are much smarter than me defend the belief. But, the presence of ad hoc answers to uphold the theory has caused me to abandon the doctrine. Are you as a skeptic willing to do the same with what you believe, even if thousands of other highly educated people claim it is true?

[TRANSPONDER]

I've answered a number of these questions, about how erosion results in levelstrata and how levelstrata can get raised above sea -level.

You then go on to repeat your accusation of science as 'ad hoc and remove all doubt by appeal to some idea that science will one day discover it was wrong. Otseng mate, do you really think that one day science will show that the world is flat, the sun and stars revolve around the earth and that illness is caused by demos that can be cast out by fasting and prayer (if you have enough Faith, that is).

No, you know that science is not going to be overturned by new discoveries in those areas and you can bet on it that Geology is Not going to suddenly realise that all the rock formations fit the Flood better than millions of years of rock deposition. It is futile for you to demand that This Grand canyon feature be explained and how it is proven that it was laid down by water or weather erosion when the meanders of the canyon prove that it had to take a couple of million years to cut down to the basic rocks and could not be the result of a Flood. I explained the flat strata raised up, the particular locations of faulting and mountains, I pointed out buried river valleys that you wanted to use as evidence for a flood 'where are they?' There they are and they refute a Flood. So you look around for something else. Even if it's already been answered.

We haven't even touched on radiometric dating since you demanded that not be dragged into it. But since you question dating, apart from the evidence of channel -cutting and mountain raising as well as the incredible depth of some chalk cliffs made up of minute sea -shells, radiometic and other dating independently arriving at deep time dates conforms what was already guesstimated.

How much science are you going to deny before we even get onto distribution of fossils? The evidence does Not support the Biblical flood.

I still have to check that newer mountains (Rockies and Himalayas) Ought to show folded strata, but we'll see.