Re: Re: A question to The Creationists, again



On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:50:08 GMT, George Evans
<georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

in article 1180362904.137802.320760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark
Nutter at manutter51@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/28/07 7:35 AM:

<snip>

If future quantitative examination of motion shows only a few hundred feet,
that would devastate evolution.

I'm afraid you're only indulging in wishful thinking here. At best, it would
indicate the existence of otherwise unknown geological processes. There are
far more inconsistencies with the global flood conjecture than with the
overthrust explanation. The reason why geologists call it the Lewis Overthrust
is because there is so much evidence that *is* consistent with a thrust fault.
If we still have some questions about the exact mechanics involved, that does
not make the creationist inconsistencies and the geologists' consistencies
suddenly somehow all go away.

It was called an overthrust before the thrust plane was examined closely
because that is what the conventional view required. Now you seem to believe
in what I will call the snowball effect. Once a theory amasses a certain
amount of evidence there is no way to refute it.

If you can come up with evidence that goes against it then that will
be considered.

I don't think that is
scientific anymore. I know physicists don't engage in such ideas. If the
theory of relativity failed in one little thing it would come into severe
question.

Also, I am engaged in more than wishful thinking. I thought about a sheet of
rock moving 50 miles over other rock compared to a fraction of an inch of
gouge,

You have never explained this "fraction of an inch of gouge". Why is
that? Is it because you are clutching a creationist straws?

and I compared that with the amount of gouge in the San Andreas
fault,

not the same sort of fault.

and I began to wonder if things all added up. It occurred to me that
there is a possibility that there could be quite a discrepancy here.

Scientists who have studied the evidence see no discrepancy.

Still, I notice you've progressed from claiming that the Lewis Overthrust is
an "impossible fit" for evolution, to saying, "if some future discovery
conflicts with evolution." Now if you would only admit that the reason you
have to appeal to hypothetical evidence which might be discovered in the
future is because the evidence we *currently* have is not as much of an
"impossible fit" as you would hope.

I did change mind, but it can't change anymore until I have more evidence.
If that evidence is consistent with a few hundred feet of motion then that
would be just as impossible a fit for evolution as no motion at all. As you
have stated in your first paragraph, at that point you would be willing to
engage in truly wishful thinking, hoping for some yet undiscovered
mechanism. So you and I are not so different.

Look, the bottom line is this. It is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E for
1,000,000,000 year old rocks to be deposited on top of 150,000,000
year old rocks. It just can't happen.

So, where we have older rocks on to of younger rocks there has to be a
mechanism. In the case of the Lewis Overthrust this is clearly plate
tectonics. It is not just the rocks of the Lewis Overthrust itself, it
is all the rocks for hundreds of miles around which help to show the
plate movements. It is rock cores taken over a vast field, including
the Lewis Overthrust, which show how the plates came together and
interacted.

Go and learn so geology, look at detailed geology maps, study the real
data and above all - for once, use some bloody common sense.

George Evans
--
Bob.

.