|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Yes I know people were thinking in terms of millions of years before radiometric dating, but what makes any of it trustworthy? I gave you a list of names - did you look any of them up? They used scientific approaches to data gathering and analysis, and they used a variety of techniques. Dalrymple goes into it in great detail in his book The Age of the Earth. The chapter on pre-radiometric techniques is 67 pages long. The lowest scientific estimate was Kelvin's 20 million years. No scientific approach to establishing the Earth's age ever found anything close to 6500 years. That lowest estimate, and also one of the earliest, was 3000 times larger.
Hutton looked at Siccar Point and said it must have taken millions of years. That's about the "scientific" level of that stuff. Hutton was not himself one of the scientists who engaged in a scientific study of the age of the Earth, but Wikipedia says of him:
quote: Do Google and Wikipedia not work for you? Too white for you? You could look this stuff up yourself, you know. That might keep you from putting fingers in gear before typing stupid stuff like, "You did not HAVE any "data" before radiometric dating." By the way, it took radiometric dating a while to push the age of the Earth back into the billions of years. When they found a rock that was, say, one billion years old, that didn't mean the Earth was one billion years old. It only meant that was the oldest rock they'd found so far. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: But all science before the modern age was reasoning... I don't know where you're starting the modern age, but data gathering has always been an important part of science. It was never just reasoning.
...and a lot of it was pretty wacky. The scientific process doesn't guarantee perfection. But the winnowing process of science casts on the scrap heap ideas that do not survive scientific scrutiny.
Now you've got radiometric dating, hooray for you. Radiometric dating is consistent with all other dating techniques, with sedimentation rates, with solar system origin theories and cosmology. If you put away your Bible and do some science for just a bit, what evidence tells you the Earth is 6500 years old? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: The whole idea of landscapes in ancient time periods is impossible. What evidence is telling you this? A 6500 year old landscape is ancient and possible, right? Is a 7500 year old landscape possible? Is a million year old landscape possible? Where are you drawing the line, and what is the evidence you're using to put the line there?
I trust geologists for basic descriptions of the world but not for interpretations of anything they think happened millions of years ago, and I've given plenty of reasons why I think that. I can't recall you ever giving reasons for anything that weren't immediately rebutted. Do you have any reasons for rejecting ages of millions of years that survived scrutiny (which means you didn't ignore posts or abandon the thread but stuck around, saw discussion through, and prevailed)? If so, what were they? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I understand the problems with all the volcanoes but something restrained the effect you think should have occurred. Given that you still have no evidence that volcanos were the fountains of the deep, why are advancing yet another unevidenced claim about something restraining the effects of all the volcanos heat and gasses?
Being underwater for instance, or occurring during the ice age perhaps. How does being underwater have any restraining effect on a volcanos heat and gasses?
I never said they erupted "at the same time" though at the beginning I would suppose there were quite a few, but they erupt as the continental plates move over them over the last 4500 years. Aren't you getting your story mixed up? Don't you need the volcanos to perform their role as fountains of the deep 4500 years ago and not spread out over the past 4500 years?
The one thing I know is true is that the Biblical worldwide Flood did occur about 4500 years ago. Everything else has to be subordinated to that. We and you already know your reasons for believing in the flood are religious and Biblical. Why not just acknowledge that and give up on reconciling your views with science. It's a hopeless exercise for you because you know so little science, and because subordinating science to religion at every conflict guarantees failure at reconciliation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: The evidence that contradicts the Bible is wrong if the Bible is true and that's the end of that. You're supposed to be doing science in this thread. If the Bible contains an accurate account of Creation and the Flood then in this thread you must have the evidence showing this is so. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The whole idea of landscapes in ancient time periods is impossible. What evidence is telling you this? I'm talking about the idea that a layer of rock in the geo column represents a landscape. The rock itself is the evidence against the idea.
A 6500 year old landscape is ancient and possible, right? As far as I know there is no rock that is purported to represent such a supposed landscape. I think you are completely missing the point. As for the rest I've given the evidence and am not going to repeat it because you didn't get it then and won't get it now either. Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy, to Faith writes: This would be my approach. The alternative is to claim that many if not most scientists are delusional. While it can be argued that many will believe the "lie" mentioned in We and you already know your reasons for believing in the flood are religious and Biblical. Why not just acknowledge that and give up on reconciling your views with science. It's a hopeless exercise for you because you know so little science, and because subordinating science to religion at every conflict guarantees failure at reconciliation.2 Thess 2:10-12 writes: Percy is correct in that this is a religious argument and attempting to reconcile "facts" to fit the puzzle is indeed an exercise in futility. I don't believe that everyone who disagrees with my belief is delusional.
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: The alternative is to claim that many if not most scientists are delusional. While it can be argued that many will believe the "lie" mentioned in 2 Thess 2:10-12 writes:
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. If God really is "That which created all that is, seen and unseen" the the Lie would be believing the Bible which is written by Man when it conflicts with the Universe which was created by God. It is Young Earth Creationists that will perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved and that are deluded so that they believe the lie and will be condemned for not believing the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: You would have to show the calculations. I don't believe it. I don't have the calculations, but I'm wondering what is the source of your skepticism that the heat released by millions of square miles of magma emerging into the oceans in just a year wouldn't be a problem. The magma of mid-oceanic ridges would transfer a huge amount of heat into the ocean if a couple hundred million years of plate tectonics were compressed into a single year, certainly enough to bake the planet. Attempting a calculation, I found this paper, Quantitative estimate of heat flow from a mid-ocean ridge axial valley, Raven field, Juan de Fuca Ridge: Observations and inferences that estimates a watt per square meter on average over the area of a mid-oceanic ridge. If the length of all ridges combined is 60,000 kilometers, and if the width of each ridge is about a kilometer, then the total area of the world's ridges is 60,000 square kilometers, and the heat given off is 60 billion watts. 60 billions watts for a year is half a billion kilowatt-hours or 1.9 × 1018 joules. But if all the continental motion for the past 175 million years were to take place in a single year then it would be 3.3 × 1026 joules (330 septillion joules - that's a lot of heat). This page already had the answer for how much heat it would take to boil the oceans, which is 3.6 × 1026 joules, which is quite a coincidence. Just look at how close those numbers are:
So it looks like it just barely isn't enough to boil the oceans into steam, but they'd be heated pretty close to 100°C, say 99°C, which would kill off all ocean life. It would heat the atmosphere (which is much easier to heat than water, so I won't even take the heat required into account) to way above where life could survive, call it 80°C just to pick a number (176°F) and supersaturate it with water vapor. All land life would be par boiled and suffocated at the same time. Bottom line: End of all life as we know it. Simple test question: Did you follow the math? The answer better be yes after you asked for the calculations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: I trust the Bible and the information it gives about time calculates out to about 4500 years since the Flood. No matter how good the other dating schemes seem to be, I'm not going to contradict God's word. If you're following the Bible where it leads then you're doing religion. If you're following the evidence where it leads then you're doing science. Obviously you're doing religion and shouldn't be participating in this thread. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I'm talking about a bald flat rock with no signs of ever having been anything but a bald flat rock in the making, in other words a huge flat expanse of wet bald sediment. Most strata, especially since the pre-Cambrian, contains signs of life. The Kaibab contains fossils of sea floor life. When what is now the Kaibab was on the sea floor, what is it about slow sedimentation gradually burying the layer to great depths that you have a problem with.
All these attempts to make these huge flat rocks into former landscapes are wild fantasies. So you keep saying, and this is still a bald declaration. What is it about supporting your positions with evidence that is so difficult for you to understand? If there is some reason based upon fact that it seems impossible to you then you're going to have to describe what that is, otherwise we'll just have to assume you're objecting for religious reasons. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Faith writes: "Pretty flat" is not flat as any rock in the geo column... Actually, as you've been shown, pretty flat is flatter than many strata in the geologic column. You are again making the mistake of extrapolating a diagram to the entire world. Edge just showed you a stratigraphic diagram containing many non-flat strata. Oh, wait, that's right, you couldn't look at it, it was too white. Was the color version I provided too white also?
...which was obviously formed originally as a flat wet expanse of sediment that in many cases covered so many hundreds of thousands of miles... I hope you mean hundreds of thousands of square miles. Your view of how strata form is fatally flawed. You've failed to take into account obvious consequences. You never answered my question from Message 2351, so let me ask again. I'm looking for two pieces of information:
Then I can consider a region like that around Brian Head, which has a couple miles of sediment lying beneath it, and get a feel for how it might have happened in your scenario. For example, let's say you tell me that each wave went a mile, and that the depth of sediment deposited was 10 feet (If you don't like the mile of travel and 10 feet of sediment for each wave then just plug in your own numbers). I can then consider the scenario where the rising waters of the ocean are within a mile of where Brian Head is today, but haven't gotten there yet. This raises the question, "How will that next mile be deposited?" Will it be like this:
Well, that can't be right. Even if you plug in much bigger numbers, like a hundred miles of travel across the landscape for each wave and 100 feet of sediment delivered, because at the end of that hundred miles after all the strata are deposited you'll still have a 2 mile waterfall. And such huge waves don't give your animals any chance to leave footprints and dig burrows on the mudflats. So how does this work? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Simply crushing a lumpy field with things growing on it is not going to produce anything like the rock surfaces found in the geo column. What is your reasoning - or is this just your religion talking again?
I'm sorry I give such short shrift to your posts since you put so much time in on them, and I know I do, but I think so much of what you say really isn't worth thinking about. Sorry. Well, I see Capt Stormfield beat me to the obvious retort, so I'll just say that the lack of content and the lapse into "bald declaration" mode in almost all your messages over the past few days indicates that your mind has already checked out of this discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Capt Stormfield writes: Where on earth did you get the idea that crushing is the only force applied to sedimentary layers as they are formed, and during the time it takes to add the layers comprising the arrangement we see today? In order for there to be a demarcation between layers, there was necessarily activity or physical disturbance at that surface. Faith was responding to what I said about crushing. I told her that a mile of sediments would exert a force of over 6000 pounds/in2, crushing flat whatever was beneath it. Any surface irregularities would be flattened. I'm not sure what you're saying, so I'll just describe what I believe to be true. The contact between strata could be conformable or non-conformable. A conformable contact indicates a change in depositional environment. A non-conformable contact indicates a missing time period during which sedimentation was for some reason suspended, or material was eroded away, then sedimentation in a different depositional environment resumed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
As for the rest I've given the evidence and am not going to repeat it because you didn't get it then and won't get it now either. You don't have to repeat it. Just point to it. Tell us which posts contain that evidence. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024