Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 4:45 PM
101 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,766 Year: 21,372/21,208 Month: 1,805/2,326 Week: 260/881 Day: 85/97 Hour: 11/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 376 of 409 (680964)
11-21-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 6:47 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Try thinking in ordinary English instead, as I explained up thread. Your distinctions are not important to the basic message. They are merely introducing irrelevant technicalites. Sheer pedantry. I suppose it would help if I did use all the terminology correctly as a scientist would, but it isn't going to happen. In my ordinary world, mud is dirt dissoved in water.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:47 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2012 7:11 PM Faith has responded
 Message 383 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:29 PM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18867
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 377 of 409 (680965)
11-21-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:23 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith,

Dissolving "stuff" somehow equates to dissolving ROCK for you guys? "Stuff?" I'm thinking MUDSLIDES here, not ROCK.

Mudslides are due to saturation of the soils with water, and then liquefaction of the soil - where it behaves more like a liquid than a solid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atterberg_limits

quote:
The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state the consistency and behavior of a soil is different and thus so are its engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based on a change in the soil's behavior. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can distinguish between different types of silts and clays. ...

Note that a search of this page for "dissolve" is negative.

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 364 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 378 of 409 (680966)
11-21-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In other words, Faith, give up all your reasoning about how the Flood happened because we don't agree with you.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:59 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 382 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 387 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 379 of 409 (680969)
11-21-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:02 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
In my ordinary world, mud is dirt dissoved in water.

What you believe doesn't make it so in the real world.

You really do damage to what little credibility you have left by making such foolish statements and then insisting that scientists have to accept your non-scientific definitions.

And then continuing to argue about it.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 380 of 409 (680970)
11-21-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:04 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
It is the facts that do not agree with you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 381 of 409 (680971)
11-21-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Coyote
11-21-2012 7:11 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2012 7:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 8:00 PM Faith has responded
 Message 393 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:39 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29185
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 382 of 409 (680972)
11-21-2012 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:04 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In other words, Faith, give up all your reasoning about how the Flood happened because we don't agree with you.

Of course not Faith, but you need to actually present the mechanism and model.

How did the sand that you claim the flood picked up get made?

How did your flood pick up mud to make the Vishnu Schist and then sand to make the Coconino Sandstone and then lay down cross bedding that looks like wind blown dunes and then put foot prints in some places?

How did the mud you claim the flood picked up get made?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:38 PM jar has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 383 of 409 (680975)
11-21-2012 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:02 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
In my ordinary world, mud is dirt dissoved in water.

But it's not. It's really, really not. Words have meanings, and if we can't use the actual definitions for the words we use, communication of ideas is impossible.

I learned the difference between mixtures/suspensions/solutions in junior high; this is the equivalent of arguing over whether you can just call a shark's skeleton "bone" (sharks are cartilaginous, they do not have "bones"). It's just wrong, and when you use a technical term incorrectly to that degree, it's like painting a giant bullseye on your argument that says "I have no idea what I'm talking about from a scientific perspective."

If you're going to talk about the science of geology then you have to use the scientific terminology correctly. The alternative is this: a large percentage of the messages in this thread revolve around telling you that sediment/mud/rocks/soil do not dissolve in water.

What you actually mean when you refer to such "dissolving" and "breaking up the land" is (presumably) that the moving water would progressively sweep away particulate matter like sand and soil and carry it along until the turbulence subsided and allowed the particulate matter to re-settle. If you had said this and not insisted on repeatedly using the word "dissolve," there would have been far more discussion on the topic.

This is all "ordinary English," Faith - it's just a matter of using the actual meanings of words. If you want to convey the meaning you have in your head to other people, you have to use words that we understand in the same way.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:35 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 384 of 409 (680977)
11-21-2012 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:29 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Well it's too late now Rahvin, I used the terms as I understand them on the level of stuff I figure an ordinary person could visualize happening in a Flood. Yes I learned those distinctions in junior high too, but I'm standing back looking at rain on the hill behind my house and scientific terms don't come to mind for that. Again, too bad if it would have helped, it's too late now.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:29 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 385 of 409 (680978)
11-21-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by jar
11-21-2012 7:16 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Jar, I don't see why I have to know how sand and clay formed to make my argument about how the Grand Canyon formed.

But I did read up on sand some time ago and there is no reason to think it takes a long time. Sand on the beach gets created fairly rapidly from sources not far out to sea that get pounded by the waves. Or some sand does. It's been a while since I read up on it but my impression was it doesn't take time. It can be formed from the tumbling of rocks down a mountain stream.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29185
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 386 of 409 (680980)
11-21-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:38 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
But you do need explain how the mud and sand you want to use got made as well as the mechanism involved in your flood stuff.

Conventional geology DOES explain what is seen.

So far all you have provided is magic.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 387 of 409 (680981)
11-21-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:04 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In other words, Faith, give up all your reasoning about how the Flood happened because we don't agree with you.

Not at all.

Is it not true that, if you were sufficiently convinced that one model or another of yours were impossible, that you would maintain your belief that the Flood happened, and that all the refutation would actually mean is that you (and by extension, "we") simply have not arrived at the correct understanding yet?

I mean, let's be perfectly honest: there is absolutely nothing, not one thing, that we could say or that you could observe that would dissuade you from the position that the Flood happened as literally described in the King James version of Genesis. You hold that belief as a certainty, and if that belief comes into conflict with any other extra-Biblical belief, you know which belief is wrong even before consulting any evidence because you know that the Biblical version is correct.

You've stated as much. You;ve also expressed a certainty that eventually scientists will probably happen upon the truth and overturn their currently false models in favor of a young-Earth and the Flood.

I'm just saying that it's okay for you to accept that you don't have a very good grasp of geology (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just being honest - your comprehension of geology as demonstrated in this thread would have failed my 7th-grade Earth Science class), it's okay for you to say "well, maybe the Flood didn't do that, or maybe there was another mechanism we haven't thought about yet," without giving up your belief in the literal Flood. You've already decoupled your belief in the Flood from observable evidence, it's all about the Bible to you, so what does it matter if one hypothesis or another gets knocked down? Why become so utterly defensive over an indefensible model of absolutely, demonstrably inaccurate geology when it doesn't even matter?

If your first dart throw isn't a bullseye, just accept it and keep throwing - keep hypothesizing until you find a model we can't easily falsify. You already know that you've won the prize, so to speak, so why become so attached to the intermediary steps of reasoning?

This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of what can be demonstrated through evidence. We do not disagree with you - observable reality does.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25895
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 388 of 409 (680982)
11-21-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:40 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
There's nothing that would change my mind THAT the Flood happened as described in the Bible although HOW it happened, which is all speculation, COULD change of course. But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details. The old earth stuff is LUDICROUS, and that's not coming from my belief in the Bible. I think if you guys would just LOOK for a change you'd recognize that there's something wrong with that shallow seas in situ nonsense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:52 PM Faith has responded
 Message 390 by roxrkool, posted 11-21-2012 7:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 8:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 389 of 409 (680983)
11-21-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:46 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.

But it's not, as has been well-demonstrated in this thread. For instance: how does a Flood transport a complete nest of eggs, completely intact, to deposit it in sediment? How do footprints wind up in between layers that were supposed to have been laid down in the Flood? Why isn't everything in the Flood-deposited layers sorted by buoyancy, like what happens in literally every other case where matter is deposited over a brief period of time from standing water

The "other creationists, including GEOLOGISTS" is just an appeal to a nameless authority - it doesn't lend your argument an ounce of credibility when your model simply cannot explain a particular set of observations. If your sources have worked out mechanisms to explain those observations, your job is then to relate those ideas to us - else all we see is your argument, refuted by an observation that falsifies your model.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:10 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 390 of 409 (680985)
11-21-2012 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:46 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
As much as you drive me bonkers, Faith, I like you. I also think you are quite intelligent and know how to put a sentence together. But reading your posts makes me incredibly sad.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:37 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
232425
26
2728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017