Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2017 4:40 AM
367 online now:
CRR, Dr Jack, Heathen, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 362 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,489 Year: 19,095/21,208 Month: 1,854/3,111 Week: 75/574 Day: 7/68 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1660 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 106 of 518 (486103)
10-16-2008 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 11:45 PM


Re: Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
Now just think what will happen to little hard-shelled sea critters if they get caught up in that mess...

They would become part of the "mess" and would not form as fossils but simply melt into the magma.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 11:45 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 107 of 518 (486109)
10-16-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
ARCHITECT-426 writes:

I'm not confused.... Igneous rock = "eruptive" rock...that didn't erupt...i.e. crystallized dried up Magma that originated very deep, and was very, very hot.

Since you are using 'made up definitions' instead of definitions agreed upon by the scientific community of geoscientists, I would certainly argue that either you are confused or you intend to confuse.

Minnemousses, RoxrKool, and I all have a background in the geosciences so I would advise you not to lecture us on the idea that plutonic rocks are considered volcanic in the scientific literature, by professionals in the geoscience fields, or even in the majority of the popular press.

To do otherwise makes any claim of being an authority in these matters look dubious and instead tends to make you appear a laughingstock.

Sometimes the best thing to do when you have clearly made an error is to simply admit that you have rather than cast doubt upon all of your assertions by association.

Edited by anglagard, : remove repetitious phrase


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 10:59 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Architect-426, posted 10-20-2008 11:53 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 108 of 518 (486175)
10-16-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by edge
10-12-2008 8:04 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hi Edge

Please explain. Certainly there is some water in most magmas, but to say that water forms magma is kind of an esoteric argument that I would like to hear your explanation of.

It is recognized by volcanologists that water acts as a heat transfer source or flux to melt rocks. This makes perfect sense as water deep within the earth would be at super-heated and super-critical temperatures due to enormous pressure.

Here are a couple of articles on lab magma. Scientists at MIT have proven this.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1993/magma-1103.html
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr19950329-00

Some do, some don't. Sometimes the water comes off without eruption.

This depends on the amount of water/magma mixture. The most powerful water/magma contact ratio is understood to be 1:10. If there is more water, the eruption is "wetter", if less, then its "dryer".

And where did most of that water come from?

The deep abyss of the earth we don't know much about and can only assume by reading P and S seismic waves unless there is another method I'm not aware of Other than exploration drilling). There could be, and probably is, a lot more deep abyssal waters. Psalm 136.

The waters for phreatomagmatic explosions comes from either ground water, aquifers, subterranean rivers, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by edge, posted 10-12-2008 8:04 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 11-07-2008 9:20 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 109 of 518 (486176)
10-16-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by roxrkool
10-12-2008 11:16 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
The vast majority are, in fact, the result of tectonism.

Will you please elaborate on the documented rate of movement of these plates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2008 11:16 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by roxrkool, posted 10-17-2008 9:06 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 112 by NosyNed, posted 10-18-2008 6:04 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18790
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 110 of 518 (486209)
10-16-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Minnemooseus
10-08-2008 1:15 AM


Re: Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
I'd say terminally off topic at this point.

Nothing about Trilobites in last several posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2008 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 111 of 518 (486270)
10-17-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Architect-426
10-16-2008 6:13 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
It seems to me you should first address those posts where your statements have been rebuked as wholly inaccurate.

Or does your silence signify concession on those matters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:13 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 11-18-2008 4:12 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8788
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 112 of 518 (486339)
10-18-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Architect-426
10-16-2008 6:13 PM


Pretending
Will you please elaborate on the documented rate of movement of these plates.

Your earlier posts pretend to know a lot about geology. If you did you would not have to ask this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:13 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2093 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 113 of 518 (486424)
10-20-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by anglagard
10-16-2008 2:09 AM


Re: Misconception Concerning Igneous Rock
Hi anglagard,

Since you are using 'made up definitions' instead of definitions agreed upon by the scientific community of geoscientists, I would certainly argue that either you are confused or you intend to confuse.

OK, I see where your coming from and I respect that. Great comment because it made me think and realize perhaps you, and others don’t see where I’m coming from. So let me try to do some explaining here….

Consider me as a “layman” looking into the world of geology. In order for me (and I’m sure many others) to fully understand and/or grasp terms/concepts, I like to “simplify” things a bit. Now while my abridged definition of igneous rock may not be, well let’s say “scientifically” accurate, it is in fact true that igneous rock was once magma, forcing its way through the earth’s crust (intruding) and not quite making it to the surface (not erupting), and thus solidifying beneath the surface forming these great masses, bosses, dikes, etc. in which now many are exposed.

As an example of how science and other professions can get a bit muddy or overly complex, consider the US tax code, which was written by attorneys, revised by attorneys, expanded by attorneys, etc. Now we have a tax code that only people who are fully educated in the “interpretation” of the code (our accountants) able to understand it. My accountant (God bless him!) is quite gifted with the ability to explain things to me in terms that I can understand, or, the “bottom line”……do I owe, or will the Uncle give me at least some of my hard earned money back….

It’s certainly no different with my profession. I can throw out some architectural lingo to my clients and get the “deer in the headlights” look, or I can explain things in terms that they can understand. Once I do that, then the doors of communication open up to better understanding each other, and we will therefore have a more successful project.

I also think you were referring in particular to the wonderful examples of plutons that we have here in the Appalachians while I was making more of a general reference to igneous rock. As you probably have already noticed, I also try to make “light of things”, in other words joke around a little. That’s just me, we all need to “loosen up” a bit and not take ourselves too seriously.

One other thought, and then we’ll get back to the topic of trilobites on mountains, keep in mind that all earth science terminologies are, in fact, man-made. What I mean by this is they are simply terms/definitions we have created in order to help us understand this awesome, mind-boggling complex world in which we live. We are simply “observers”, and nothing more. Furthermore, when we consider our “allotted” time to observe this world, it is very, very, very humbling. Whether you chose to believe the world is billions or thousands of years old, we are ONLY here for a very small blip of time, and what we do with our God given time then becomes paramount. Tomorrow may never come for any of us.

I hope this all make sense. Sometimes we have to get a bit “off topic” in order to get back on topic.

All right, no more lecturing or “preaching”……the topic at hand is very interesting and perplexing. I believe that we are actually now getting to the “meat” of the topic by discussing mountain formations. So I think the following must be explored:

1. Origins and various mountain formations.
2. How fossils are formed/made.
3. The mechanisms of transporting, placing, or mixing of these fossils in the rocks.
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

I will do my best to go back and respond to some earlier posts, but I only have so much time….

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : I misspelled deer!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by anglagard, posted 10-16-2008 2:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 1:12 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5904
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 114 of 518 (486429)
10-20-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Architect-426
10-20-2008 11:53 AM


The date of the flood
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

It would help if you could specify a time period for the purported flood.

It makes it very difficult to discuss these issues if the "flood" could have happened at any time between about 2250 B.C. and 3 billion years ago.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Architect-426, posted 10-20-2008 11:53 AM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2008 2:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18790
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 115 of 518 (486433)
10-20-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
10-20-2008 1:12 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
Hey Coyote,

I don't think we need to focus on this issue yet, rather I would like to see a mechanism for flood → movement of layers of rocks → present day formations. Once we have a mechanism for transporting whole layers of rocks with sedimentary layers virtually intact, then we can look at when those layers formed and when they may have been so transported.

In that regard I will go along with Architect-426's Message 113 on his 4 points:

msg113 writes:

1. Origins and various mountain formations.
2. How fossils are formed/made.
3. The mechanisms of transporting, placing, or mixing of these fossils in the rocks.
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

We can also break (1) down into subcategories:

(a) volcanic origin, occurring on a fairly regular basis throughout the geological history (evidence of Hawaii Islands for instance), but which can be fairly recent, and

(b) tectonic origin, occurring by gradual processes of uplift and earthquake and other associated plate boundary effects, which can be ongoing (such as is measured in places like the top of Mt Everest and the high point in the ridge crossing the Grand Canyon), but won't produce mountains during a human lifetime (or even generations).

(c) mixtures, where the mountain is formed mostly by the second process, but also has evidence that volcanic activity occurred in its past (ash, tuff, lava layers between sedimentary layers).

Further we can stipulate that as volcanic mountains do not contain sedimentary layers, they (and their formation) is relatively irrelevant to the issue of moving these large continuous, multiple layers of sedimentary fossil bearing rocks to mountain tops.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : counting


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 1:12 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5904
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 116 of 518 (486437)
10-20-2008 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
10-20-2008 2:31 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I don't think we need to focus on this issue yet, rather I would like to see a mechanism for flood → movement of layers of rocks → present day formations. Once we have a mechanism for transporting whole layers of rocks with sedimentary layers virtually intact, then we can look at when those layers formed and when they may have been so transported.

I disagree. The date of the purported flood is critical in terms of where one would look for evidence.

First, those who believe in the flood really have to pin down a date. We can't have the "Its not there, its over there!" phenomenon every time we examine a stratum or time period and eliminate it from contention.

Second, if that date is during historic times, as most biblical scholars suggest, we don't want to be looking in geological formations at all. Plate tectonics and mountain formation are non-issues. We want to be looking in the soils, and in the uppermost layers of those soils.

But if you really want to debate mountains and plates, that's fine with me. I'll wait until another thread comes along.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2008 2:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 10-20-2008 8:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 117 of 518 (486449)
10-20-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Coyote
10-20-2008 3:33 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
There are several problems, however:

1) Forcing YECs to pin down a date for the flood or identify sediments/rocks that mark the beginning and ending of the flood is virtually impossible. You are not going to get a concrete date.

2) YECs discount absolute dating techniques at their convenience (except when it happens to support a Biblical event).

3) Compressing the entire 4.5 billion year geologic record into a 10,000 year timeframe (+/- 4,000 to billions of years), results in geologic and geomorphologic events becoming issues that demand explanation.

4) Finding a YEC that understands even the very basics of the various sciences he or she is arguing is also virtually impossible, and this accounts for much of the frustration exhibited in these discussions. That's why they suddenly jump to other subjects -- they've exhausted their knowledge-base in those particular areas.

And those are just the tip of the iceberg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 3:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 10-20-2008 10:58 PM roxrkool has responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 10-21-2008 8:46 AM roxrkool has responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 518 (486452)
10-20-2008 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by roxrkool
10-20-2008 8:55 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
Hey Rox,

Welcome back and congradulations on the MS and being done with "hell".

We are not quite done with the bullshit, my wife, who has a BFA with Honors from Michigan State in 1973, got her BA in Geology in May 2007 from CU and is now working on her MS at the South Dakota School of Mines. Doing well for a 57 year old chick!

It has been a long time since I was in school and I forgot how stupid it can be.

Just to remain on topic, fossils on mountains or wherever are proof that there could not have been a world wide flood because of their areal distribution.

I can explain that, but if you need me to it's a sure bet you are not a Geologist.

Marty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 10-20-2008 8:55 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by roxrkool, posted 10-21-2008 12:48 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 119 of 518 (486455)
10-21-2008 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by petrophysics1
10-20-2008 10:58 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I'm a [CS] Mines grad myself. :)

Best of luck to your wife!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 10-20-2008 10:58 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 120 of 518 (486480)
10-21-2008 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by roxrkool
10-20-2008 8:55 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
There's another point that I think might fit on your list. Psychologists are in the midst of establishing how unexpectedly frequently human beings make up their minds first and seek rationales later. This is a purely human tendency to which no one is immune, though some obviously have it more than others.

One important aspect of scientific training is imbuing in students the habit of thinking first and reaching conclusions later, and one significant difference between evolutionists and creationists is that the former frequently have scientific training while the latter do not.

This explains the creationist habit of making up their minds first and seeking evidence later, but it should be kept in mind that we on the evolutionist side do the exact same thing, because we usually accept the findings of science before seeing the data. Where we have a big advantage is that when we seek the evidence behind a scientific position we know it will very likely be there because scientific positions are reached through the scientific method that requires putting evidence before the conclusion.

Interestingly, this human tendency to jump to conclusions has secondary and tertiary effects. Not only do creationists jump to conclusions like, for example, that the earth is young, they also jump to the conclusion that the evidence supporting that fact must exist, else so many books and websites wouldn't be saying so. They then jump to another conclusion that the people behind those books and websites know what they're talking about.

But true science produces a record of advancing knowledge. We know where good science is being done because it produces positive results. Creationists decry the methodological naturalism of science as hostile to Christian thought and express a desire for "a broadly theistic understanding of nature" (Wedge document), yet they have not as yet been able to demonstrate that this approach yields positive results. They not only haven't shown it to be superior to modern scientific methods, they haven't shown it to be equal, or almost as good, or even to produce any results at all. A significant handicap in making such demonstrations is that they haven't yet defined any theistic scientific methods, but they somehow know they'd produce better scientific results, or at least results they'd be happy with.

I'm afraid I've wondered far afield just to offer more support for the view that YECs with any experience in the debate would tend to shy away from offering specific dates for the flood, since they are already aware of the lack of any supporting evidence for any date. But I thought important to note that what they're doing is really just human nature.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 10-20-2008 8:55 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by roxrkool, posted 10-21-2008 11:21 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Buzsaw, posted 11-16-2008 5:58 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017