Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(6)
Message 34 of 1896 (713348)
12-12-2013 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Atheos canadensis
12-11-2013 11:40 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?
Ah, to be a new member again...
No, I lost my curiosity through experience.
Plainly, she's just not an honest person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 11:40 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2013 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 1896 (713376)
12-12-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
12-12-2013 4:37 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Simply because the Old Earthers don't believe the planet was totally inactive for a few billion years. They believe that the activity we see ongoing in the world today has always been going on, the volcanoes, the earthquakes, the tectonic disturbances, the destructive weather patterns. I think, on the other hand, that if any of that happened during the formation of the stack of the Grand Canyon you would not have that nice neat stack a mile deep that is visible in various places in the canyon.
The strata that the GC cuts through wasn't where it is now when it was forming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 4:37 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-12-2013 7:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 224 of 1896 (713745)
12-16-2013 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Faith
12-16-2013 11:25 AM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
As I've argued many times, anything about the unwitnessed past is nothing but speculation.
That argument is wrong. I explained earlier, but the thread got closed, so here it is:
quote:
The INTERPRETATION of empirical evidence needs CORROBORATION from SOMEWHERE or you're just castlebuilding.
Yeah, we're in the present. Stuff is happening.
We can gather evidence from the past, and test it against what is happening in the present to figure all kinds of stuff out.
Companies don't just blindly poke around for coal to burn, they ask scientists who have studied how coal forms. Those scientists used evidence from the past, and applied how things are happening in the present, to determine where coal can be found.
Now, if you were correct, then the scientists would have a poor track record and nobody would think they know what they are talking about. But, in actuality, the scientists can determine where coal can be found. And that proves that you're wrong. Science works. Even on things that happened in the past.
Lab science can replicate its empirical findings to corroborate them. One time events in the past have nothing whatever to corroborate whatever interpretation you decide to lay on them UNLESS you have witnesses from that past.
False. Heck, you don't even have to be on the same planet:
NASA Curiosity rover discovers evidence of freshwater Mars lake
The mars rover found some interesting rocks:
Those rocks formed in the past. Scientists compared them to processes that happen today that form rocks like that. They concluded that water was included in the process.
So therefore, in the past, there must have been water on mars. It isn't there today.
So there you have it, using physical evidence from the past to make conclusions about things that must have happened even though there were no witnesses to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 11:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 229 of 1896 (713754)
12-16-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
12-16-2013 12:20 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I'm glad they can find coal though I don't see what that has to do with unknowables about the past.
Scientists can use what you are referring to as "speculations" and make accurate predictions of where coal can be found.
If their "speculations" were really just speculations, then they wouldn't be so right all the time and their track record would be bad.
But its not, because they actually do know what they are talking about. People really can figure out stuff about the past without any witnesses.
I don't think they had a lot of problem finding coal before Old Earth theory came along did they?
Not just stumbling across some coal, but learning about what kind of environment causes coal to form, and then using that knowledge to locate where coal will be found if a particular location is drilled.
If you are correct that its just "speculations" about the past, then there'd be no reason why the scientists can accurately predict where it will be found.
And their accurate predictions are based on the fact that it takes 100's of millions of years for coal to form:
Scientists have studied how those processes work today and they apply that knowledge to what we know about the past. They can use those "specualtion" to make accurate predictions. That means that they are correct.
But if the Grand Canyon was clearly not laid down layer by layer over millions of years that wrecks Old Earth theory and whatever science gets right is something else.
The strata that the Grand Canyon cuts through was laid down layer by layer over millions of years. That's not just a wild speculation on the scientists' part, that's a conclusion that was reached through the study of the evidence from the layers, themselves, and the processes that form strata like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 235 of 1896 (713763)
12-16-2013 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
12-16-2013 1:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
"what kind of environment causes coal" doesn't require any idea about millions of years.
Sure it does. Didn't you look at the picture?
Ancients forests from 100's of millions of years ago were converted into coal over those millions of years.
I've SHOWN that the layers wree not laid down over millions of yeaers. You just have to THINK about the evidence given.
I've thought about what you've posted, and nothing you've posted shows that the layers were not laid down over millions of years.
Its not that we are blind or biased, its that you're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 1:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 242 of 1896 (713771)
12-16-2013 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:08 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
No you haven't thought about anhy of it because I've given good arguments on good evidence.
Yes, I have thought about it. Both your arguments and your evidence are bad.
Those forests are not millions of hyars old. And you can actrually SEE coal seams forming between the layers in road cuts in some places in the country. Coal is caused by the compression of vegetation which would have happened at certain layers in the Flood. One thing that does seem to be true is that the same layers occur at the same levels so you only need to know the level, not the age.
But the scientists who can accurately predict where coal will be found use the knowledge that they formed from forests from 100's of millions of years ago to make those predictions.
If they were so incredibly wrong, like they'd have to be for you to be right, then there's no way that their predictions could be so accurate.
But they can make accurate predictions, so therefore they are correct and you are wrong.
Nobody who is trying to find coal uses The Flood in any of their methods for predicting where it will be found.
The people who can accurately predict where coal can be found operate under the impression that it forms over millions of years.
Given that the millions of years approach actually works to yield accurate predictions, and that nobody considers The Flood, its obvious that the scientists are correct and that The Flood has nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 245 of 1896 (713775)
12-16-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
12-16-2013 2:23 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
Since you don't even try to reproduce any of my arguments but just call them "bad" proves you haven't a clue what I've said. If you can't address what has been said you have no business commenting at all.
False. In Message 224, I reproduced, addressed, and refuted your argument that conclusions about the unwitnessed past are just speculation.
You replied to my refutation by simply asserting that coal formation doesn't require millions of years.
I continued my line of reasoning and further explained how we know they do.
You've now just replied to an insignificant section of my message rather than addressing my argument.
You've failed to address what has been said, so according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all.
But you're wrong on that account as well, so go ahead and actually address my argument with something other than bare assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 264 of 1896 (713826)
12-16-2013 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
12-16-2013 7:21 PM


Re: Why is understanding the Old Earth information impossible?
You are interpreting according to the OE theory.
Yes, of course. That's the theory that works.
OE Theory is what lead those scientists to be able to predict where coal can be found deep under the ground.
And they're getting it right. Their findings, however, contradict a young Earth.
If you want to find coal; you don't ask the YEC's, you ask ask the scientists.
I suppose their OE Theory could all just be the butt of a joke, but it is yielding results. And that makes them look right.
If you weren't {interpreting according to the OE theory} you could acknowledge the points I've made about how the strata were all in place before
the GC uplift occurred
the GC was formed
all the stairs and canyons of the GS were formed
the Hurricane fault occurred
the magma dike in the GS area occurred
all the formations of the southwest were sculpted
such as the hoodoos
the strata were individually undisturbed by any comparable events before all that happened,
I acknowledge that if I were assuming that the OE Theory was wrong, and that the Earth was in fact young, that those strata could not have been laid down individually and undisturbed.
Just loosing the assumption of the OE Theory, and placing no bets on the age, I would conclude that those strata were laid down individually, and were disturbed, over the course of a very long period of time.
showing that individually they were never at the surface of the earth throughout the entire billions of years they supposedly took to form
That doesn't show that. You mentioned us not really considering your alternative, but you seem to be doing exactly that. I don't think you fully understand the concept of the OE Theory.
You gotta really stretch the time out. The layers are individual, but some of them are just gradually collecting like dust so deep that it would take what seems like forever. And over that time, the plate that the sediment is sitting on is grudging along the surface it is sitting on, but going even even slower. The kinds of disturbances that would happen in that process, would be unimaginable.
And I think you're mistaking what we mean by "surface", the surface of the strata can be covered by water. Way back when it was way over on the other side of the planet, just gradually grudging along, there were all kinds of environments that it went through experiencing. Over long periods of time, remember. And they gradually left behind "individual" layers that represent great changes in the experiences that the surface of the Earth was going through. Changes that would take forever.
[Moose repellent]That's what I meant in Message 44, Moose.[/moose repellent].
So anyways, assuming that the OE theory is wrong and then finding a way to interpret evidence that simply corresponds with that assumption (like saying that the layers couldn't have been laid down individually and undisturbed (which is an assumption of what you're trying to explain)), is not a way to show that the OE theory is wrong.
Assuming that the Earth is young, and then suggesting that the strata as observed could not have been laid down in a way that corresponds to what would be a short amount of time, and then concluding that the Earth could not be old, is not a good argument based on good evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 7:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Coyote, posted 12-16-2013 8:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 266 of 1896 (713828)
12-16-2013 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
12-16-2013 8:18 PM


Re: Two questions for the Old Earthers
1) According to you all, what caused the uplift of the GC?
In short: Plate tectonics.
As the surfaces are gathering over the underlying surfaces that are on plates, they are slowing sliding along the surfaces that those plates are sitting on. As things gradually move about and collide and separate and all kinds of stuff, various different anomalies such as that uplift occur.
2) Please tell me: What was the cause of the Supergroup?
A section of a very ancient surface of the Earth that was eroded away and gradually deposited upon while it was slowly carried across the underlying surfaces of the Earth through a process that keeps repeating itself today, as it has for extremely long periods of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 12-16-2013 8:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 12-17-2013 2:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1671 of 1896 (717533)
01-28-2014 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1670 by Atheos canadensis
01-28-2014 2:59 PM


Re: the usual radiometric flimflam
Hey, remember my reply to you from 7 weeks ago:
Message 34:
quote:
you writes:
Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?
Ah, to be a new member again...
No, I lost my curiosity through experience.
Plainly, she's just not an honest person.
Was I right, or what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1670 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-28-2014 2:59 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1673 by Atheos canadensis, posted 01-28-2014 4:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024