nick c wrote:Agreed, of course. It is not necessarily observations that are disputed. What is disputed is the interpretation and conclusions drawn from those observations, within the context of a paradigm.I personally do not see how the observations of earth science are incompatible with EU theory.
I'm a catastrophist. I believe legend to be historic. Legend describes a complete resurfacing of the Earth within the last 10,000 years. Because of the description of oil raining down like precipitation for days and nights it appears the depth of this resurfacing was quite deep. The lakes of oil we find today would have been at the surface at one time, instead of a mile or more deep in some instances.
IF this is true there would be no time for the San Andreas fault to slip to the North.
"Pinnacles National Park, located near the San Andreas Fault along the boundary of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, is an excellent example of tectonic plate movement. The Pinnacles Rocks are believed to be part of the Neenach Volcano that occurred 23 million years ago near present-day Lancaster, California, some 195 miles (314 km) southeast. The giant San Andreas Fault split the volcano and the Pacific Plate crept north, carrying the Pinnacles. The work of water and wind on these erodible volcanic rocks has formed the unusual rock structures seen today."
I've been to Lancaster CA looking for the other half of the volcano. It's not there. Just similar minerals.
It seems to me the Pinnacles were created by a filament of red hot dust. This is not mentioned as an option at the park.
If this scenario is correct, NOTHING being taught today in geology is correct. Sorry. One model is billions of years old, the other closer to 3,500 years.
Maybe legend is a bunch of crap. Maybe there were no catastrophes with oil raining down like water from the sky. But if the legends are historic, EVERYTHING taught in geology and geophysics using a billion year model is crap.
I mentioned earlier about the trauma of wasting time and money by studying a flawed model. Max's response to the catastrophic model is a perfect example. Instead of asking questions and trying to educate yourself You wrap Yourself in an "open mind" defense. It seems believing in a catastrophic model equals a closed mind. Then i'm guilty of having a closed mind.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj9L8_ ... VBYDtml5hg
If the videos linked above are accurate, NOTHING concerning the geologic process as taught in universities is close to accurate.
The standard geologic model and the catastrophist model have NOTHING in common. The magic elevator might need repair, or more likely abandonment.
Maybe Worlds in Collision should be required reading for geology 101.
The areas beneath the recently resurfaced Earth might be billions of years old, with everything moving up, down and sideways. Just trying to keep an open mind.