Whispers Of A ‘Thrilling Tale’ In Santa Fe?

The media and secular scientists alike claim that observing things in the present make a “huge” impact of what went on in the past! However, when does observable reality imply about unobservable reality and is this unobservable reality created by scientists really real?

Secular scientists believe in a global catastrophe while creationists believe in one as well, however both have different interpretations of the data of what exactly was the global catastrophe. Creationists say it was the flood, while secular scientists have created their own story

“Scientists are currently studying the Santa Fe impact structure to determine when this event took place. Right now they can only say the meteorite struck sometime between 1.2 billion and 330 million years ago. Certainly it happened far enough in the past for the impact crater to be completely altered or eroded.”

“Complicating the question is the “Great Unconformity”, an event that wiped about a billion years of history out of the geologic record of this region. The disappearance of these tons of rocks was due to erosion — seas receded, and the newly exposed rocks wore away through wind, rain and other weathering processes. Then the seas flooded in again and sediments began forming new layers. The result is that a 330-million-year-old rock layer now lies directly on top of rocks that vary between 1.2 and 1.6 billion years old, depending on the location.”

Wait a minute, did this Great Unconformity only happen in a region around Santa Fe? It’s pretty  obvious throughout the Grand Canyon as well, where underlying rocks, even tilted sediments, were planed flat as a pancake over a vast area. Also there are new sediments  that lie on top of this clear boundary, sometimes with huge boulders embedded in the sandstone.  Whatever caused a violent shearing force to underlying igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks covered a wide area.

Even heavily biased for evolution, Wikipedia states, “Geologist John Wesley Powell called this major gap in the geologic record, which is also seen in other parts of the world, the Great Unconformity.” What caused it? The Milwaukee Evolutionist League attempted to refute the idea that the “Great Unconformity” was evidence for a global flood, recorded in the Bible.

They claim in 2005…

“Only a glacier can plane off rugged, jagged mountaintops with such level precision,” the writer, who calls himself “SaganJr,” said.  “A massive enough glacier can literally bulldoze over rock, leveling off everything in its path.”

On the contrary, this is a very poor explanation of what happened in the past! Where are the valleys, like Yosemite?  Where are the moraines?  Where are all the millions of meteors that supposedly fallen in a billion years ago, and why were none of them large enough to end the ice age? Where are numerous gullies, channels and faults running through the Great Unconformity that were verify such an hypothesis? Also, if the whole world were a mountain covered with ice, the glaciers would have no place to slide and plane off the surface. The evidence suggests sediments quickly became deposited, which indicates a flood not an ice glacier which in turn verifies the Bible!

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Whispers Of A ‘Thrilling Tale’ In Santa Fe?

  1. Michael, wanted to leave you some encouragement. Your posts are being read by many and enjoyed. Keep up the good work and I pray God blesses you and all that you do.

  2. Michael . .

    This post screams out to me: TAKE A GEOLOGY COURSE!!!

    Unconformities happen all the time. . . Why do i even bother?!

  3. Michael

    The evidence suggests sediments quickly became deposited, which indicates a flood not an ice glacier which in turn verifies the Bible!

    Really? Evidence left over from glaciers is characteristically different than liquid water erosion. That’s how they knew it was ice, not liquid water. Take a geology course for God’s sake!!

  4. How can anyone still wonder why scientists laugh at creationists? Michael’s thinking in this post is even less consolidated than a glacial moraine.

    Perhaps the biggest howler, geologically, is—

    Where are all the millions of meteors that supposedly fallen in a billion years ago, and why were none of them large enough to end the ice age?

    For MIchael’s and mcoville’s benfit—everyone else already knows this—large-scale meteor bombarment ended 3 billion years ago, while the last ice age ended 10 thousand years ago. Creationists not only believe in short time spans, they seem unable even to conceive of times in the millions and billions of years. Let’s try to put it in perspective: If 1 foot represents the time since the ice age, then the distance from here to the moon would represent the end of the meteor bombardment. Got it now?

    So that is ewhy the meteors did not end the ice age. Duh.

    .

    The other howler in the same paragraph is almost as risible—

    Also, if the whole world were a mountain covered with ice, the glaciers would have no place to slide and plane off the surface.

    If you can uncover your eyes long enough, take a look at a glacier map in, say, an 8th-grade science book. Was the entire earth covered in ice? No. Was the whole world a mountain? No. Sometimes we do wonder what courses through Michael’s mind instaed of actual brain waves The whole world was not covered in ice. For example, there was no ice where Michael lives—perhaps that’s why he doesn’t understand morains or drumlins or other unconsolidated glacial till.

    .

    The evidence suggests sediments quickly became deposited, which indicates a flood not an ice glacier which in turn verifies the Bible!

    So, if this is the evidence that supports Michael’s claim, then we truly have nothing to fear.

  5. So I should read the refs to see which glaciation Michael’s confused rant had in mind. Not the most recent series of glaciations, but the “snowball earth” scenario. That was about 700 million years ago, only 2.3 billion years after the end of the great meteor bombardment. Thwe point remains the same. The meteorites didn’t melt the glaciers because they ended 2.3 billion years before the glacier started.

    There is another problem as well. Eelco could help us calculate this more precisely, but the meteorites themselves heated the Earth hardly at all. Volcanoes raise the Earth’s temperature hardly at all. The Earth’s radioactivity heats the surface hardly at all. The atmosphere traps the sun’s radiation, heats the ground, and melts glaciers, and it needs long periods of time to do that.

    You’d think that creationists would tery to learn a little about science in order to debunk it, if for no other reason. But they seem repelled by knowledge.

    .

    Yesterday, I was reading my son’s latest issue of Sport Aviation, the members’ magazine of the Experimental Aircraft Association. Introducing a sweries of articles on new technologies, a page-1 editorial states:

    When we see something complex or overwhelming, we tend to ask, “How did they do that” or “How does it work?”

    This is exactly the difference between science and creationism. Scientists analyze and come up with new knowledge. Creationists remain mired in the only answer they will allow: “God did it. That was good enough for grandpa, and it’s good enough for me.”

    ————–

    (The “tractor project” turned out to be a 1937 John Deere Model B, narrow front. Whose 2-cylinder, 12HP kerosene-burning engine last ran about 15 years ago. It will run again.)

  6. mcoville

    Michael, wanted to leave you some encouragement. Your posts are being read by many and enjoyed.

    Read and enjoyed perhaps, but certainly not understood. Otherwise, mcoville would be laughing with everyone else.

  7. Michael

    Somehow I have the nagging feeling that even many so-called “Creationist Scientists” would want to disassociate themselves from much of the “logic” you post here on your blog. . . partucularly on Geology.

    Honestly, I remember hearing that even the fellows at BiblicalGeology.Net at one point even admitted they used the same methods that conventional geologists use. In which case, that would beg the question of the “scientific basis” for “flood geology.” — Perhaps I remember wrong — Uhhh, no I don’t. It’s still fresh in my mind.

    Now Michael, since you talk about geology in this post, . . . tell me this, . . What schooling do you have on the subject? And then based on that, how can you say that the evidence for ice glaciers was REALLY due to a flood which “varifies the Bible?” —

    — Well, I can tell you that even if it was water and not ice, . . both water and ice leave u-shapes over LONG PERIODS of time…. Therefore, this could not have been the result of a year long flood.

    — And Micheal. . . . I have a question for you I really want you to answer. . . . WHAT IF FLOOD GEOLOGY WERE PROVEN TO BE FALSE. . . .WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOUR FAITH IN GOD?? —– I am serious. I want an answer.

  8. Tim Cooley :@Kris. Creationists don’t believe in scientific schooling. That’s indoctrination!

    True, especially in the case of the Young Earth Crowd. . .I really don’t like to think that Yong Earth, Flood Geology theorists make up a majority of Creationists. I’d need to see the stats for that, though… Perhaps this is just wishful thinking.

  9. Tim Cooley

    @Kris. Creationists don’t believe in scientific schooling. That’s indoctrination!

    If scientific schooling is indoctrination, then what creationists do is … uh …

  10. Wouldn’t you think that creationists would attempt to learn just a little about the subject that they try to overthrow?

    Apparently knowledge repels them so strongly that they can’t even get near it without an acute attack of drivelalia factosis.

    This is really why scientists laugh at creationists. Not because they’re wrong. Because they don’t even understand what they’ attack. Michael seems not to understand the difference among the three major types of rock. Some geologist. (See Chapter 1, page 3.)

  11. MORE NEWS IN CREATIONIST GEOLOGY

    Andrew Snelling, chief geologist of the Institute for Creation research and editor of Answers Journsal, has weighed in against the authenticity of the alleged find of Noah’s Ark last Spring on a slope of Mt. Ararat.

    Indications are that the lavas making up the Mt. Ararat volcano today are of considerable thickness, much higher and thicker than the Ark itself. This would mean that should the Ark have landed at the place currently known as Mt. Ararat, on Day 150 of the Flood (Gen. 7:24), it would eventually have been buried under thousands of feet of hot burning lavas.

    Ken Ham was even more pessimistic. he noted that even a verifiable finding of Noah’s Ark would not convince anyone who would not otherwise embrace the Judeo-Christian faith from traditional evangelism.

    Sooooo why do creationists keep on looking for Noah’s Ark, again?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s