nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
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.
Looking over your post, you twist the request a bit. Nobody is asking for prediction, not even you. But of course you mean Explanations, which you haven't given but Geology has, despite you saying it hasn't. You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when? The thing is that there have been oceans for millions of years. At one time, more ocean than land, so of course there will be a lot of water - laid strata but at different times and with salt, coal oil, beneath these supposed flood levels. I don't know how the Flood accounts for that (1) , any more than I see how the flood accounts for faulting, tilted strata and mountains. All you could do, I suppose, is use accepted geology and say it all happened at once. Over to you.
(1) Though I just put on my Theist hat and it is easily explaniable - expect for the salt -mines. But that can just be avoided.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:13 pm
A tectonic plate was relatively stable for millions of years means absolutely no geologic activity during that entire time? No faults, no tilting, no erosion, etc? What can account for that?
No, the entire North American tectonic plate was slowly moving towards the West. As the entire North American plate was moving, the Western leading edge was being folded and faulted into a mountain range as it collided with the Farallon plate. Meanwhile, the rest of the North American plate continued its gradual Westward movement. At the time, a shallow sea existed on top of this portion of the plate to the East of the newly forming mountain range. No folding or faulting occurred in the sediments being deposited in the shallow sea during this time because it was situated on the portion of the plate that was too far away from the leading edge of the colliding plate boundaries. Eventually, however, the Farallon plate became completely subducted beneath the North American Plate to the point where it was being melted into the mantle directly below the portion of the North American plate with the shallow sea on it. It was at this point that the melting Farallon plate uplifted the portion of the North American plate with the shallow sea on it.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:13 pm
Sure, I'm not saying the layers now represent flat surfaces. Tilting and deformation have occurred after all the layers were formed. What I am saying is when the layers were formed they were flat. Are you contesting this?
No, I'm not contesting the fact that sediments were being deposited in a shallow sea behind the newly forming mountain range.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:13 pm
It makes no sense because SG cannot explain it, not because it's an illogical question.
Are you saying faults never occurred in the past?
No, I'm not saying faults never occurred in the past.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:13 pm
I don't know who, certainly not me. It doesn't matter how thick the layers were. The point is they are parallel, regardless of thickness of the layers.
Stratified sedimentary deposits are not unexpected in the geologic context of the Colorado Plateau. The natural explanation for those geologic features has been provided to you multiple times already and is not contested by any of the experts in the field.
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:13 pm
Because nothing was deposited during unconformities?
No, unconformities have a variety of natural explanations. Some unconformities do exist because not much deposition was occurring at the time. Other unconformities exist because the previously deposited sediments were eroded away. Unconformities can also exist because the previous layers of sediment were intruded by magma or transformed into metamorphic rock by the heat from a nearby source of magma. The fact that it is difficult or impossible to determine if some unconformities resulted from erosion or a lack of deposition does not invalidate the broader understanding of an area's geologic history.
A Gratuitous Ad Hominem (despite the fact that what follows is a series of critical thinking questions):At what point will we be justified in abandoning our effort to educate you accordingly because you consistently misunderstand these geologic concepts and explanations when they are explained to you over and over again? Are you aware that there is no shame in recognizing when you are in over-your-head with something, and exhibiting this type of intellectual humility does not require you to concede to your opponent's arguments? When I find myself in over-my-head while considering various quantum physics concepts, should I insist that the experts in that field are mistaken because I can't make sense of their rigorously peer-reviewed equations and explanations? Alternatively, should I acknowledge that those quantum physics equations and explanations will only make sense to me after I dedicate a significant amount of time towards educating myself in the necessary prerequisite information? Furthermore, if a few people who do understand quantum physics on an online forum were to abandon their efforts to educate me after I consistently misunderstood their repeated explanations and refused to familiarize myself with the prerequisite information, would I be justified in defaulting to a pseudoscientific explanation simply because a few forum members were unable to help me accurately comprehend the scientific perspective? If you think I would not be justified in that scenario, then why do you keep insisting that the geologic explanations you've been provided are unsatisfactory compared to the pseudoscientific flood model when the people who do correctly understand the basic geologic principles have repeatedly indicated to you that you have neither demonstrated an accurate understanding of those concepts nor demonstrated a willingness to acquire the necessary prerequisite education? Why should the experts who have an accurate understanding of the more complex and nuanced geologic concepts and explanations be persuaded to take your poorly informed objections seriously when you can't even properly describe what it is that you are objecting to? Even if you don't perceive yourself behaving in the way I've described, can you at least acknowledge how such behavior would be perceived as insufferable?
If they could support their belief from scripture and prove my belief was wrong Yes I would change. There are many who not only believe scripture but also know that God gave His word to mankind for their own good.
FYI - My apologies, but I won't be available to respond on this forum for a while. My career is advancing me into a new role in another State, and I'll be busy preparing my house to go on the market and finding a new home. Thanks for understanding.
bluegreenearth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:18 am
FYI - My apologies, but I won't be available to respond on this forum for a while. My career is advancing me into a new role in another State, and I'll be busy preparing my house to go on the market and finding a new home. Thanks for understanding.
You chose a nice time of year for doing it - but good luck. There's not much going on with the topic anyway, just another effort to argue that Genesis is something more than an ancient Babylonian myth.
