Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:53 AM
388 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, frako, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (5 members, 383 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,436 Year: 19,042/21,208 Month: 1,801/3,111 Week: 22/574 Day: 22/38 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 121 of 518 (486520)
10-21-2008 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
10-21-2008 8:46 AM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
I agree, Percy.

And to this I would add that Creationism is a perfect example of truthiness.

Some people need the Bible to represent absolute truth so much, that they are forced to will facts into existence.

This is a powerful foe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 10-21-2008 8:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3903
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 122 of 518 (488133)
11-07-2008 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Architect-426
10-16-2008 6:10 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
quote:
It is recognized by volcanologists that water acts as a heat transfer source or flux to melt rocks.

Really? As something of a volcanologist myself, I find this to be a remarkable statement. You are saying that water will transfer enough heat from one place to another to melt rocks in that new location?

quote:
This makes perfect sense as water deep within the earth would be at super-heated and super-critical temperatures due to enormous pressure.

Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. Most water in volcanic rocks is bound water. It is not a separate water or steam phase untill the body cools.

quote:
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

Neither of these say anything like what you seem to be talking about.

quote:
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".

Do you know that most of the mid-ocean ridge tholeeites and hawaiian-type basalts are among the dryest volcanic rocks on the planet? Why do you supppose that is?

quote:
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).

I'm not sure what the 'deep abyss of the earth' is. Are you talking about the abyssal ocean? Do you really think that seismology has found bodies of water in or below the crust of the earth?

quote:
There could be, and probably is, a lot more deep abyssal waters. Psalm 136.

Ah, good! A biblical reference to tell us about the structure of the earth. Now that makes sense. However, I'd like to see some data.

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

Have you ever seen a subterranean river? Do you understand what an aquifer is? Do you think there are aquifers at the base of the crust or in the mantle? And why would any of these not be dexcribed by a mainstream model?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Architect-426, posted 10-16-2008 6:10 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 123 of 518 (488747)
11-16-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by edge
11-07-2008 9:20 PM


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

quote:

Really? As something of a volcanologist myself, I find this to be a remarkable statement. You are saying that water will transfer enough heat from one place to another to melt rocks in that new location?

First off I never said I am a volcanologist, but utterly interested and fascinated by the phenomena? Absolutely, and I believe it was the scientific mechanism in which the earth was utterly destroyed. Why wouldn’t a body of water act as a heat transfer? In engineering it’s simply called convective heat transfer. The earth is dynamic, not static at all and there’s a heck-of-a lot going on down there. If there are large abyssal bodies of water at these extreme temperatures, then they could certainly be able melt the rock at their boundary. At that point volcanism begins with the vertical movement of the magma body through the crust. And of course depending on their viscosity, temperature, mineral makeup, local geology etc. will determine weather they become intrusive or extrusive.

quote:

Actually, it doesn't make sense at all. Most water in volcanic rocks is bound water. It is not a separate water or steam phase untill the body cools.

This can potentially open up a bigger discussion of which rocks are “volcanic” and which are “not”. I’ve always been perplexed by this in studying geology. Virtually all rocks, with the exception of some sedimentary rocks, were at one time molten, and had to be “placed” in their current position by a huge mechanism. If this is true, then technically all rocks are “volcanic”. Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a “volcanic” fashion. So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?

In addition, yes the water at that point will certainly be bound water after cooling. The fact is there is dissolved water in all magmas. Some types of magmas more than others of course. Where does this water come from? It must be buried deep. And if the water is given off too quickly, the magma body will stop it ascent and dry.

quote:
Neither of these say anything like what you seem to be talking about.

I’m somewhat at a loss on your comment here. My point is magma needs water. Water reduces the melting point tremendously. It is the most important volatile in magma “production”, followed by CO2. Here are a few more links that may help.

http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/MantleConvection/170298_notes.html
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/09799/EGU2007-J-09799.pdf
http://www.cerritos.edu/earth-science/tutor/On-Line_lecture_notes/Volcanoes/Unit_11_Lecture_Magma.htm

Click on the video of the lava fountain recorded in Hawaii earlier this year. No fishing allowed!
http://www.kitv.com/news/16816020/detail.html#

This one in particular talks about the aqueous fluids released in mid-ocean crusts.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/gji/1999/00000137/00000001/art00767?crawler=true

quote:
Do you really think that seismology has found bodies of water in or below the crust of the earth?

You bet they have.

http://www.geotimes.org/may07/article.html?id=nn_deepearth.html
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/8222.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118927207/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1994/93JB03405.shtml
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110460141/abstract
http://www.seg.or.kr/mullitamsa/2004/vol7_no1/05EG351Xue_y(25-32).pdf

quote:
Ah, good! A biblical reference to tell us about the structure of the earth. Now that makes sense. However, I'd like to see some data.

Provided above.

quote:
Have you ever seen a subterranean river?

Quite frankly I try to spend most of my awake and vertical time above ground, and yes I have witnessed subterranean water.

quote:
Do you understand what an aquifer is?

Of course. Ever heard of the Quarani’ Aquifer or the Ogallala Aquifer systems? There is plenty of water available inside the earth for phreatomagmatic and hydrovolcanism.

quote:
And why would any of these not be dexcribed by a mainstream model?

These models do exist and are certainly described in phreatomagmatic and hydrovolcanism as well as other types of volcanism. One more scientific link to bore everyone with:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985pggp.rept..280S

Let me summarize this.

1. The Scriptures describe deep abyssal waters. Also read Psalm 24 as well as Genesis Chapter 1. Go ahead, it won’t hurt you…
2. Magma needs water as a flux to form and contains dissolved water.
3. Seismic anomolies have produced results of deep abyssal waters.
4. The interior of the earth was first thought to be molten, then solid, and now the conclusion is both. I agree that it is both.
5. Crustal waters provide the needed “coolant” interaction with magma to produce large scale volcanic explosions. Los Alamos National Laboratories have proven the larger the magma, water contact area, the greater the power of the eruption. In other words, volcanic explosions can be utterly colossal.
6. It has been observed that when large scale eruptions and earthquakes occur, other regions of the earth are affected. This was the case this year when shortly after the Sichuan earthquake occurred, new geysers opened up in Iceland. Also volcanologists are a bit perplexed by the eruption of three volcanoes in Alaska this year and have concluded that these eruptions are most likely interconnected. Scripture supports this type of action-reaction phenomena.
7. Water always wins in the water-rock battle. Always. It melts rocks, turns rock into mud, explodes, flips rocks over, makes mountains out of them and blasts them into smitherines. It floods, erodes, and freezes causing more and more damage to rocks. The very element that sustains and gives life has the utter power to completely destroy it, and God destroyed the earth with water.

I hope this helps to clarify my hypothesis. Thanks.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : bad joke


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 11-07-2008 9:20 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2008 3:50 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 125 by bluescat48, posted 11-16-2008 4:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2008 8:08 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 129 by roxrkool, posted 11-17-2008 1:32 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 124 of 518 (488748)
11-16-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


Sorry, no flood
The very element that sustains and gives life has the utter power to completely destroy it, and God destroyed the earth with water.

Nonsense. This is just a local tribal myth.

However, if you want to try to support this then I would like to start with two basic questions.

1) What was the date of this flood (clearly during historic times)?

2) To what geological era does this flood correspond (i.e., where should we look in the earth for the evidence)?

If you can provide answers agreed-upon by creationists we can then proceed.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1659 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 125 of 518 (488749)
11-16-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a “volcanic” fashion. So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?

The "volcanic" rocks are those which are extrusive. Most Igneous rocks are intrusive, cooled below ground and over the course of time, with the above ground having been eroded away, were exposed to the surface.

Igneous and volcanic are not synonyms


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 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 518 (488751)
11-16-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Percy
10-21-2008 8:46 AM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
Percy writes:

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.

I've been reading quite a bit in this thread and so far have read no statements by any creationists claiming that the earth is young. Of course by now you're aware that I'm not a YEC and Architect says he's not.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 10-21-2008 8:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2008 8:09 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 127 of 518 (488757)
11-16-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


nothing about trilobites
hey ARCHITECT-426,

This can potentially open up a bigger discussion of which rocks are “volcanic” and which are “not”. ...

In other words - a side topic to your side topic on volcanism that doesn't relate to trilobite fossils in sedimentary deposits on mountains.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

You could just use Message 123 as your topic and carry on from there.

Topics are limits to ~300 posts, and of late there has been zero discussion of trilobite fossils and other sedimentary deposits on mountaintops and an explanation of how they got there.

Enjoy.


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 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 128 of 518 (488758)
11-16-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
11-16-2008 5:58 PM


so what about them trilobites eh?
I've been reading quite a bit in this thread and so far have read no statements by any creationists claiming that the earth is young.

Curiously the OP does not require one or the other, rather it has to do with explaining the diversity of sedimentary fossils on mountain tops and how a Y/O/G creationist would explain this fact.

Enjoy.


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 126 by Buzsaw, posted 11-16-2008 5:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2008 10:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 129 of 518 (488784)
11-17-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Virtually all rocks, with the exception of some sedimentary rocks, were at one time molten, and had to be “placed” in their current position by a huge mechanism. If this is true, then technically all rocks are “volcanic”. Not all erupted out of a conical volcano, but were spread across the face of the earth in a “volcanic” fashion.

I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly you are saying here.

What is your definition of volcanic and what do you mean by "placed" and "spread across the face of the earth?"

Obviously, the first rocks on earth had to be igneous. Once the earth had land masses, the igneous rocks could start weathering, eroding, and breaking down into gravel and sand deposits. Once those gravels or sands harden by being cemented together, they are called sedimentary rocks. While the individual minerals and rock fragments of these sands and gravels technically started out as igneous phases, the new rocks are not termed igneous and were never molten.

Once the earth had bodies of water and had cooled sufficiently, carbonates started to precipitate and were interbedded with clays, siliceous oozes, iron, etc., to form marine deposits. These certainly were never molten, either.

With the advent of plate tectonics, rocks started getting smashed, ground, subducted, heated/cooked, all of which results in metamorphism. These are the only rocks that may locally reach a partially molten stage.

So where do geologists conclude rocks originate from if not via a volcanic mechanism?

Sedimentary rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks form on the surface of the earth (on land or underwater) and record the conditions that existed therein, including water temperature, water chemistry, climate, atmospheric chemistry, etc. Sandstones, conglomerates, shales, limestones, volcanic ash fall, cherts, etc. all comprise sedimentary rocks. Geologists rarely have difficulty identifying sedimentary rocks or where in the geologic cycle they formed.

Metamorphic rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, and internal structures. Metamorphic rocks form from other rocks that have been subjected to new conditions. These rocks most often form below the surface of the earth under increased temperature and pressure, but also at contacts with igneous bodies where the original rock gets heated by the incoming magma body. These rocks are often very easy to identify, but occasionally have a similar appearance to igneous rocks.

Igneous rocks are identified as such based on composition, appearance, internal structures. These rocks formed either under the surface of the ground (intrusive, plutonic rocks) or were erupted onto the surface of the earth (volcanic rocks). They are derived from deep within the earth, were molten, and upon reaching cooler temperature regimes, hardened into rocks. Intrusive/plutonic igneous rocks tend to be coarser grained while extrusive/volcanic igneous rocks tend to be finer grained. They often have very well defined and intergrown crystalline structure. These rocks are rarely confused for anything other than metamorphic rocks on occasion.

While sedimentary rocks form on the surface of the earth, metamorphic and intrusive igneous rocks (because they are typically deep-seated) must be exposed to the surface in order to be revealed. This is accomplished through tectonics and weathering.

Rocks form in many different environments and by simply looking at the mineralogy, we can see under what conditions they formed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 518 (488811)
11-17-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by RAZD
11-16-2008 8:09 PM


Setting The Record Straight
RAZD writes:

Curiously the OP does not require one or the other, rather it has to do with explaining the diversity of sedimentary fossils on mountain tops and how a Y/O/G creationist would explain this fact.

I understand, but since Percy and others tend to paint all creationists with this YEC brush, I saw fit to set the record straight.

That YEC brush, which is neither Biblical or scientific, works to weaken creationist's credibility in these science threads.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2008 8:09 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:37 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2092 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 131 of 518 (488851)
11-18-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by roxrkool
10-17-2008 9:06 PM


Re: Plate Tectonics - Where's the "V"?
Hey Roxrkool,

Congrats on your recent achievement! Welcome to the “real world” or back to it, whichever the case may be. I sincerely wish you well in your future endeavors.

Or does your silence signify concession on those matters?

Absolutely not. I will certainly be glad to elaborate later.

I have been designing and building buildings for over 25 years now. That’s quite a few projects. Now I’m not ‘tooting my horn’ here, but you, and everyone else should know that I am a very pragmatic individual. I have successfully designed and completed a wide variety of construction projects over the years. Real projects, real clients, real budgets, real agencies, real challenges. My point is that “design theories” or any type of “theory” for that matter are “out the window” in the real world. Bottom line, things must work. In construction sometimes we move or reshape mountains and even at times we make “new ones”. We do this primarily with 2 means; 1. Dynamite and 2. Heavy equipment. Its takes LOTS of energy to move and reshape the earth.

Here is a simple pragmatic kinetic energy equation you may remember from physics 101; KE=1/2 x M x V (squared)

V = velocity, which of course is required for kinetic energy. Since everyone is ‘dodging’ my question regarding the documented amount of movement of these so called “plates”, please at least explain what generates the “V” in plate tectonics that is powerful enough to create KE needed to build mountains. No theories. No jabs at Faith. I’d like to see real, pragmatic, scientific documentation that has been observed, recorded and tested. Then we can begin to explore how fossils ended up so lofty.

Approach this as if your entire career depends on it. Every time I sign and seal Construction Documents from my office, my design, research and calculations must work, because my entire career does depend on it.

I look forward to your (and anyone else who concedes to the plate tectonic theory) response.

Thanks

Just read your post above, thanks for your thorough response. I have a few more questions but will post those later.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by roxrkool, posted 10-17-2008 9:06 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Coragyps, posted 11-18-2008 5:19 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2008 7:09 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 132 of 518 (488852)
11-18-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
05-25-2008 4:41 AM


1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture,

How does this follow from your premise?

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

How do these assertions harm a Genesis flood?

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

What contradiction?

How did this OP get past PNT?

All you have done in this last paragraph is to state (rather poorly) the evolution explanation.

The Creationism explanation is the Great Flood.

Half of all adults in the U.S. accept the Creationism explanation.

Once again: we have one set of evidence and two major explanations.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2008 4:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 4:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2008 8:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 133 of 518 (488853)
11-18-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
11-17-2008 10:14 PM


Re: Setting The Record Straight
That YEC brush, which is neither Biblical or scientific, works to weaken creationist's credibility in these science threads.

I agree 100 percent.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2008 10:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 134 of 518 (488854)
11-18-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 4:36 PM


Creation "science" again
Once again: we have one set of evidence and two major explanations.

No. Wrong. Totally and completely wrong.

The creationists' explanation for the facts was tested by science and rejected between 150 and 200 years ago.

Since then the scientific explanations have been tested and supported time and time again.

It is only the creationists, using their illegitimate version of science -- creation "science" -- who refuse to accept the findings of science due to religious reasons.

You can blind yourselves to reality, you can misrepresent and ignore those inconvenient facts, but you can't claim what you do is science, nor that your explanations are equally legitimate as scientific ones.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 5:18 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 517 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 135 of 518 (488856)
11-18-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Coyote
11-18-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
The creationists' explanation for the facts was tested by science and rejected between 150 and 200 years ago.

I thought you believed Creationism was not testable?

It is only the creationists, using their illegitimate version of science -- creation "science" -- who refuse to accept the findings of science due to religious reasons.

If this means we accept a Great Flood because the Bible says so I would agree that this is the first and foremost reason. The second reason is because the physical evidence corroborates. In this context I would say that evolutionists reject the Bible for anti-religious reasons. Presuppositions determine interpretation of evidence. Darwinism presupposes the Flood false because otherwise evolution is false. Creationism presupposes the Flood true because the Bible is the most credible Source ever assembled. The criteria for canonicity was "was the writing Divinely inspired?"

You can blind yourselves to reality, you can misrepresent and ignore those inconvenient facts, but you can't claim what you do is science, nor that your explanations are equally legitimate as scientific ones.

In a recent different thread I readily admitted that 20th century Creationism is not science. Of course 20th century Darwinism is not science either because of its starting presuppositions (pro-Materialism-Naturalism).

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2008 4:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by bluescat48, posted 11-18-2008 5:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 138 by obvious Child, posted 11-18-2008 6:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
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