Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 10:55 PM
414 online now:
Coyote, LamarkNewAge (2 members, 412 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,994 Year: 6,600/21,208 Month: 2,361/2,634 Week: 24/525 Day: 24/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 61 of 137 (722558)
03-22-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by JonF
03-22-2014 2:50 PM


Re: the so called evidence
Well that takes care of THAT, doesn't it?

No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's. It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.

{ABE: And by the way, your "argument" I'm answering here is the lowest kind of ad hominem. Shouldn't a serious scientist be above such stuff?}

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 2:50 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 3:12 PM Faith has responded
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 4:00 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 62 of 137 (722559)
03-22-2014 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-22-2014 2:55 PM


Re: the so called evidence
quote:

No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's.

I guess you like it because you need it to be true to preserve your faith in your idols.

It's not as if there were any chance of it being true. Look at all the evidence against it. The tons of missing material. The eroded material from the lower strata, but none from the upper. The sudden transition from deep folds, to none at all. All of it makes sense with Hutton's model but not with yours.

quote:

It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.

I'll afraid that's just a false speculation on your part. If you had that knowledge you wouldn't agree at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 2:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 3:40 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 63 of 137 (722560)
03-22-2014 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
03-22-2014 3:12 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
THIS IS OFF TOPIC IN A THREAD SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT ASTEROIDS BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET IT GO UNANSWERED.

It's not as if there were any chance of it being true. Look at all the evidence against it. The tons of missing material.

There's so MUCH missing material at Siccar Point, in the foreground of every picture of the rocks, as well as all the layers that were once above it, very probably to a great depth, as they are in the Grand Canyon for instance, that it's silly to focus on missing material at the contact. All of it got washed away from wherever it was pushed to.

The eroded material from the lower strata, but none from the upper.

This is a strange illusion. At Siccar Point and at the Great Unconformity you see large clasts embedded IN the material laid down horizontally above the contact line, that famous quartzite boulder in the GC for instance, but also see the You Tube video of Siccar Point where this phenomenon is mentioned. These clasts are considered to be evidence of the erosion itself, but their being embedded in the upper sediment is also evidence that both were eroded. The lower buckled layers would naturally have been eroded more extensively and coarsely in the abrasive friction with the upper, which being horizontal would have provided more of a slippery surface. Still, the embedded clasts of the lower in the upper do show that the upper was also eroded. And why should there be loose clasts at all if the lower had been eroded clean long long long before the upper were laid down?

The sudden transition from deep folds, to none at all.

Don't know what you are referring to here. Deep folds where? You simply mean the fact that the lower is folded and the upper not at all? But this is exactly what would happen if the force were sufficient to buckle the lower beneath a different kind of sediment with a different enough texture to provide a slippage contact between them. No buckling at all should occur above that point.

All of it makes sense with Hutton's model but not with yours.

Beg to differ. And I'd also add the weathering factor in the case of Siccar Point. The rocks there are quite severely eroded simply from the severe weather at that location, surely you agree. But there isn't ANY difference between the degree of weathering between any of the vertical layers or between them and the upper horizontal layers, yet supposedly millions of years elapsed between them. There should be such differences between the vertical layers because they were supposedly laid down over millions of years too, as well as between that block of layers and the upper block, where it should even be more obvious. But it isn't.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 3:12 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 4:20 PM Faith has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 64 of 137 (722561)
03-22-2014 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
03-22-2014 1:55 PM


Re: Back to the asteroids
Provided for informational purposes. Even though you have claimed to not have studied "creation science", you have admitted to visiting creationist sites and using their materials. Since those sites themselves mostly recycle the claims made by prominent creationists, you should try to familiarize yourself with those creationists and with their claims, as well as with the criticisms of their claims.

Apparently the theory I found is THE main creationist theory, by a Walter Brown?

Walter Brown has been active in "creation science" at least since 1979, when a brochure he'd written contained the earliest instance that I know of for the "leap second" claim; since this is the earliest instance I could find, I assume that he had created that claim. Now about 76 years old, he currently resides in Phoenix, AZ, but in his heyday he mainly operated out of the Mid-West, having been described as "the Mid-West ICR" and "a one-man ICR". He's a PhD Mechanical Engineering and a military retiree (I had heard Air Force, bolstered by his having used two Air Force magazines plus Reader's Digest as his three sources for the leap second claim, but Wikipedia doesn't say which branch he had served in and that he had graduated from West Point, which would have made him Army -- he enlisted post-National Security Act, so the Air Force would have already been a separate branch). He is credited with having developed a Flood Geology model called "hydroplate theory", though I have no idea how much he actually knows about geology and geo-physics. He wrote at least one book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, which I believe is what he has posted on-line and which I have looked through. His Wikipedia article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist).

I first became aware of him in 1984 when an encounter with him appeared in an article on Dr. Duane Gish's infamous bullfrog-protein claim made on national TV and for which Gish repeatedly promised to support with evidence, but never ever did. Brown claimed that an actual scientific study (the1976 study by Margaret Dayhoff's comparing cytochrome c sequences of different species) showed show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism. What the study actually shows is that higher taxa are roughly equidistant from each other genetically. Cytochrome c in rattlesnakes and humans differ by 14 amino acids and humans and rhesus monkeys by only one amino acid -- chimpanzees were not included among the 47 species in that study, but in other studies human and chimpanzee cytochrome c is identical, no differences. There were no other snakes in the Dayhoff study, so by coincidence it was the human protein that was marginally closer to the rattlesnake than any other species in the study was to the rattlesnake.

The point is the Brown's claim had to be worded very carefully in order to remain technically true. It would be ludicrously false to say that, according to that study, "humans are more closely related to rattlesnakes by cytochrome c than to any other organism", since the study clearly shows that humans are more closely related to other mammals than to rattlesnakes. You could only be technically truthful in saying that, according to that study, "rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism", because the study included no other snakes.

So Brown had to be very careful in his wording of that claim, which means that he was aware that it was false. In addition, when the reporter, Robert Kenney, came across Brown repeating his rattlesnake protein claim to group crowded around him, Kenney then started to explain the facts about that claim, whereupon Brown very quickly changed the subject. This demonstrates that Brown is known to have chosen to deliberately lie and deceive.

The leap second claim is much more likely to have been an ignorant mistake. As the NAVSTAR project was being developed in the 1970's leading up to its going on-line in 1980 (it's what provides the GPS service), articles about it flooded technical and science popularizing periodicals. One aspect of the system is that our highly accurate time-keeping has set the standard for the length of a second (an atomic clock standard) and the length of a day. But since the earth's rotation is generally slowing down, this throws off when noon occurs (the basis of the solar day, AKA UTC, that all our clocks are synced to), so we need to correct that periodically by adding or subtracting a "leap second" (so far, we've only added them). Although the rate of slowing down has been measured empirically at about 10 ms / day / century (from memory), the error that accumulates can require adding a leap second every 18 months, though we have also gone through periods where we didn't add one for a few years (I work on products that use GPS receivers).

(assuming that Walter Brown created this claim) When Walter Brown read about having to add a leap second every 18 months because the earth's rotation was slowing down, he mistook that to mean that the earth's rotation was slowing down by one second every 18 months, a rate that is about 6000 to 7000 greater than the actual rate. He used that to extrapolate back to find the earth's rotational rate millions and billions of years ago and came up with ridiculous rates, such that the rotational forces would have reduced the earth to a flat disk. This claim became very popular among creationists and spread very widely, such that it is still a very popular claim.

In 1982, the claim was soundly refuted by Awbrey and Thwaites, creators of one of the only true two-model classes (until the campus Christian clubs revolted and forced it to be cancelled) in their article, As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time?. Despite that, creationists continue to use the claim three decades later. It was one of Hovind's favorites, and when a group tried to engage creationists in dialogue by contacting 15 web sites that carried the claim and revealing it to be blatantly false, the response was either stonewalling or abject refusal to correct a blatant falsehood (An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on young-earth creationist websites. Part 1, An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on young-earth creationist websites Part 2 by ReligiousTolerance.org, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance).

One exception to that creationist rule appears to have been Walter Brown himself. When I read through his on-line book, there was no mention of the leap-second claim. This tells me that he had realized the mistake he had made and stopped using that claim. However, his rattlesnake-protein claim is still in there, albeit as a footnote, so he still has not learned to not lie. He is to be commended for his response to the refuting of his leap-second claim, but condemned for the rattlesnake-protein claim.

At any rate, you now know about his book and should be able to find it on-line so that you can see what he actually said about asteroids -- creationists are infamous for misrepresenting scientific sources and I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to creationist sources as well. Just take what you read with a generous amount of salt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 65 of 137 (722562)
03-22-2014 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
03-22-2014 1:50 PM


Re: the so called evidence
Faith writes:

The point should be recognized that it is only a hypothesis, that all they had in the end and still have is the idea that it looked to them like it must have taken more than 6000 years, and eventually others got persuaded and that's the so-called "evidence" you have.

You are amazing Faith, it's like the 200 years since Hutton hadn't happened.

There's 200 years of corroborating evidence from several different branches of science that the earth is old. What Hutton thought, like what Darwin thought, is a matter of historic interest only.

Saying that Hutton is all we have is the equivalent of saying that the formula for gunpowder is all NASA has.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 1:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 12:24 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 66 of 137 (722563)
03-22-2014 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-22-2014 2:55 PM


Re: the so called evidence
No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's. It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.

But it does take some knowledge to analyze the rock formation, characterize it, and understand how the rocks originated and how the forces that acted on it arose.

You have not proffered any explanation.

And by the way, your "argument" I'm answering here is the lowest kind of ad hominem. Shouldn't a serious scientist be above such stuff?

Sometimes I think that there's a YEC admissions board, and if you know what ad-hominem is you aren't allowed in.

No, it's not any kind of ad-hominem. It is an insult, one that is true and richly deserved and based on observation of your posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 2:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM JonF has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 67 of 137 (722564)
03-22-2014 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
03-22-2014 3:40 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
quote:

There's so MUCH missing material at Siccar Point, in the foreground of every picture of the rocks, as well as all the layers that were once above it, very probably to a great depth, as they are in the Grand Canyon for instance, that it's silly to focus on missing material at the contact. All of it got washed away from wherever it was pushed to.

That doesn't make a lot of sense - given your scenario. How could it be pushed any distance, and how could it get washed away? It's all locked up underground.

quote:

This is a strange illusion. At Siccar Point and at the Great Unconformity you see large clasts embedded IN the material laid down horizontally above the contact line, that famous quartzite boulder in the GC for instance, but also see the You Tube video of Siccar Point where this phenomenon is mentioned. These clasts are considered to be evidence of the erosion itself, but their being embedded in the upper sediment is also evidence that both were eroded.

No, it isn't - not in the absence if eroded material from the upper. It makes much more sense that the material you refer to was eroded out of the lower sediments and redeposited with the newer sediment.

quote:

Don't know what you are referring to here. Deep folds where? You simply mean the fact that the lower is folded and the upper not at all? But this is exactly what would happen if the force were sufficient to buckle the lower beneath a different kind of sediment with a different enough texture to provide a slippage contact between them. No buckling at all should occur above that point.

Please explain how different textures could have that effect.

quote:

Beg to differ. And I'd also add the weathering factor in the case of Siccar Point. The rocks there are quite severely eroded simply from the severe weather at that location, surely you agree. But there isn't ANY difference between the degree of weathering between any of the vertical layers or between them and the upper horizontal layers, yet supposedly millions of years elapsed between them. There should be such differences between the vertical layers because they were supposedly laid down over millions of years too, as well as between that block of layers and the upper block, where it should even be more obvious. But it isn't.

First, I don't agree - and I wouldn't guess based on photographs either. Second as I keep having to point out (although it should be obvious) the weathering of a surface depends on the time that that surface is exposed to the weather. The differing dates of deposition simply don't give us this information. So even if you,re right your argument relies on an obvious misunderstanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 3:40 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:31 PM PaulK has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1345
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 137 (722565)
03-22-2014 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
03-22-2014 3:00 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Faith writes:

And can you point me to the actual evidence that those on your list supported the Old Earth? I'd be particularly interested in Spurgeon, Boice, Machen, Warfield and Hodge.

First, I should clarify what I said previously.  Not all of these men held to the Gap Theory; some held to the Day-Age view and at least one held to Theistic Evolution.

C.H. Spurgeon's Gap Theory views were expressed in a number of places, including one which a leading YEC group tried to cover up, as documented  on the page "Why Doesn't Answers in Genesis Tell You the Truth?"

C.H. Spurgeon writes:

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

Spurgeon also alluded to the Gap Theory in his "Treasury of David" commentary on Ps. 104:6:

C.H. Spurgeon writes:

Verse 6. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment. The new born earth was wrapped in aqueous swaddling bands. In the first ages, ere man appeared, the proud waters ruled the whole earth. The waters stood above the mountains, no dry land was visible, vapour as from a steaming cauldron covered all. Geologists inform us of this as a discovery, but the Holy Spirit had revealed the fact long before. ...

Boice's views were expressed in a number of places.  He went into great detail in his "Genesis: An Expositional Commentary" Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982).  In his chapter 6 on Theistic Evolution, he noted that it was defended by B.B. Warfield and James Orr.  In chapter 7 on the Gap Theory, he noted that it was held by Custance, Chalmers, Pember, Pink, Rimmer, Scofield, DeHaan, and Barnhouse.  Finally, in chapter 9, on Progressive Creationism (also known as the day-age view), Boice clarified that this was the view that he himself held:

James Montgomery Boice writes:

First, we have dismissed atheistic evolution and have come close to dismissing theistic evolution as well. ...

Second, we have suggested that any view that makes the earth a relatively new thing (on the order of twelve thousand to twenty thousand years old) flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable.  Some would dispute this, of course.  But in my judgement the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.

Third, we have shown the possibility of God's  having formed the earth and its life in a series of creative days representing long periods.  In view of the apparent age of the earth, this is not only possible--it is probable. ...

The views of Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Young are mentioned by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in explaining why they do not take a narrow, dogmatic interpretation regarding the age of the earth, in the document "Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation"

WTS Faculty writes:

The 19th century Princetonians, who regarded themselves as upholders of Reformed orthodoxy and of the Westminster Standards, expressed broad views of Genesis 1 which have frequently been discussed. In particular, neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1. The Princeton tradition refrained from dogmatic insistence on a single necessary meaning for "day" (yōm) in Genesis 1.

Westminster Theological Seminary has always seen itself as continuing to honor the Princeton legacy. This was confirmed by the founder of the institution, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, when he stated in connection with the days of Genesis 1: "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time."

Professor Edward J. Young, often regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy in this matter, while holding that a chronological sequence is taught by Genesis 1, nevertheless made abundantly clear that chronological sequence should not be equated with or confused with chronological duration ...

Charles Hodge, in his "Systematic Theology", Chapter X, "Creation" made positive comments toward both the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory:

Charles Hodge writes:

... God, we are told, “created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Here it is clearly intimated that the universe, when first created, was in a state of chaos, and that by the life-giving, organizing power of the Spirit of God, it was gradually moulded into the wonderful cosmos which we now behold. ... There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation ex nihilo by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes.
...
Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe, two methods of reconciling the Mosaic account with those facts have been adopted. First, some understand the first verse to refer to the original creation of the matter of the universe in the indefinite past, and what follows to refer to the last reorganizing change in the state of our earth to fit it for the habitation of man. Second, the word day as used throughout the chapter is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration.
...
It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them.

B.B. Warfield did not hold to the Gap Theory, but to a form of theistic evolution.  This can be seen in his own writings, "Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings" edited by Noll and Livingstone. (It is disputed, however, whether or not Warfield switched from theistic evolution to the day-age theory later in his life.)

For more individuals, see the list of "Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective"

Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed WTS link

Edited by kbertsche, : Fixed beyondcreationscience link


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 3:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 7:03 PM kbertsche has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 69 of 137 (722573)
03-22-2014 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
03-22-2014 4:00 PM


Re: the so called evidence
To dismiss a person's argument without even stating it, calling the person "ignorant" as the reason for ignoring it, is an ad hominem.

ABE: However, even as an insult, which you are willing to own, it's extremely bad form on a debate board.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 03-22-2014 4:00 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by JonF, posted 03-23-2014 8:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 70 of 137 (722575)
03-22-2014 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
03-22-2014 4:20 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
That doesn't make a lot of sense - given your scenario. How could it be pushed any distance, and how could it get washed away? It's all locked up underground.

At Siccar Point it's all exposed and the layers break off, they aren't continuous. At the GC I figure the rubble is somewhere under the strata outside the frame of the usual diagram. The strata of which the Great Unconformity was made must continue to exist somewhere too.

but their being embedded in the upper sediment is also evidence that both were eroded.

No, it isn't - not in the absence if eroded material from the upper. It makes much more sense that the material you refer to was eroded out of the lower sediments and redeposited with the newer sediment.

No, the upper material WAS eroded but it maintained its finegrained character so that all you see is that material with the chunks of the lower material embedded in it. And in both cases, the GC and Siccar Point, the chunks are suspended above the contact line, which is NOT what you'd expect if they preexisted the deposition of the upper strata. And I can't even picture how that would happen if they were supposedly redeposited as you claim either. They'd already be there on the usual scenario, how do they get redeposited?

Please explain how different textures could have that effect.

Try Lyell's experiment with folded cloth, using folded flannel, terrycloth, cotton sheet, satin, velvet. Flannel will not slide relative to flannel but buckle together, and probably not relative to terrycloth either, though it's possible the terrycloth would buckle beneath the flannel, if I had some flannel I'd check, but flannel will slide relative to satin for sure, and you'd have to test the others but there should be similar effects between them.

First, I don't agree - and I wouldn't guess based on photographs either. Second as I keep having to point out (although it should be obvious) the weathering of a surface depends on the time that that surface is exposed to the weather. The differing dates of deposition simply don't give us this information. So even if you,re right your argument relies on an obvious misunderstanding.

The lower strata were presumably built up slowly over millions of years, tilted and eroded and submerged while the upper strata were deposited, if I'm remembering the sequence Hutton had in mind correctly. That means the lower were supposedly exposed a long long time before being submerged and if the weather was the same all that time there should be a difference in the effect from one layer to another. I see no differences among the vertical strata myself. And the vertical strata appear to be weathered in the same degree as the upper as well, and in that case since they were already supposedly severely weathered befpre being submerged they should continue to be far more weathered looking than the upper strata no matter how long they were exposed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 4:20 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 6:55 PM Faith has responded
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 7:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 71 of 137 (722576)
03-22-2014 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
03-22-2014 6:31 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
quote:

At Siccar Point it's all exposed and the layers break off, they aren't continuous. At the GC I figure the rubble is somewhere under the strata outside the frame of the usual diagram. The strata of which the Great Unconformity was made must continue to exist somewhere too.

That's just assumptions without explanations.

quote:

No, the upper material WAS eroded but it maintained its finegrained character so that all you see is that material with the chunks of the lower material embedded in it.

Please produce evidence that th is the case. It certainly doesn't make any sense in the case of the boulder.

quote:

And in both cases, the GC and Siccar Point, the chunks are suspended above the contact line, which is NOT what you'd expect if they preexisted the deposition of the upper strata. And I can't even picture how that would happen if they were supposedly redeposited as you claim either. They'd already be there on the usual scenario, how do they get redeposited?

By my understanding that IS the case at Siccar Point. And you seem to have forgotten that the situation at the Grand Canyon is rather less simple than you suppose. There are portions of the "lower" strata still sticking up into the "higher" strata. Have fun explaining how that is possible in your scenario.

quote:

Try Lyell's experiment with folded cloth, using folded flannel, terrycloth, cotton sheet, satin, velvet. Flannel will not slide relative to flannel but buckle together, and probably not relative to terrycloth either, though it's possible the terrycloth would buckle beneath the flannel, if I had some flannel I'd check, but flannel will slide relative to satin for sure, and you'd have to test the others but there should be similar effects between the

Which combinations produce the result you claim, why, and how do you know that this applies to rock?

quote:

The lower strata were presumably built up slowly over millions of years, tilted and eroded and submerged while the upper strata were deposited, if I'm remembering the sequence Hutton had in mind correctly. That means the lower were supposedly exposed a long long time before being submerged and if the weather was the same all that time there should be a difference in the effect from one layer to another.

You seem to have forgotten to work out how long the upper strata were exposed. It' sided that you seem to think that you can do a comparison by only looking at one side. And as I remember the pictures showed a vertical cross-section, much of which may well not have been exposed in the period of erosion between the formations.

quote:

I see no differences among the vertical strata myself. And the vertical strata appear to be weathered in the same degree as the upper as well, and in that case since they were already supposedly severely weathered befpre being submerged they should continue to be far more weathered looking than the upper strata no matter how long they were exposed.

My evaluation is different, and as I have already pointed out this makes the mistake of assuming that there is no period when the upper strata were exposed to weathering while the lower were not. You need evidence, not assumptions. Hard facts, not subjective evaluations of photographs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 12:28 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 72 of 137 (722577)
03-22-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by kbertsche
03-22-2014 4:30 PM


Old Earth views of some Christian leaders
Thank you VERY much for assembling all that information, I truly appreciate it and it's information I really need to know. From my point of view it's very sad but I still need to know it. My original post assumed, as I guess many do, that Christians holding Old Earth views must also be influenced by Liberal Christianity, that got started in Tubingen, because to my mind they both require bending the scripture to accommodate a worldly belief. So it's important to know that there are different sources of such ideas. Thanks again.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kbertsche, posted 03-22-2014 4:30 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2014 6:32 PM Faith has responded
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 03-23-2014 6:55 PM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 73 of 137 (722582)
03-22-2014 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
03-22-2014 6:31 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
200 years Faith. You've got some catching up to do.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 74 of 137 (722584)
03-23-2014 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Tangle
03-22-2014 4:00 PM


Re: the so called evidence
The point should be recognized that it is only a hypothesis, that all they had in the end and still have is the idea that it looked to them like it must have taken more than 6000 years, and eventually others got persuaded and that's the so-called "evidence" you have.

You are amazing Faith, it's like the 200 years since Hutton hadn't happened.

There's 200 years of corroborating evidence from several different branches of science that the earth is old.

ALL your "corroborating evidence" is of the same kind, though, it can't be anything BUT hypothetical because there is no way to prove it, just as Hutton couldn't prove it. All the claims that the earth is old from all the sources are still hypothetical so all you are doing is adding together hypotheticals from various sources and calling it "corroboration." You suppose it about Siccar Point, you suppose it about the strata, you suppose it about the fossils, you suppose it about radiometric methods, and so on and so forth.

What Hutton thought, like what Darwin thought, is a matter of historic interest only.

His method is still all you've got for the age of the earth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 03-22-2014 4:00 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 8:04 AM Faith has responded
 Message 78 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 8:43 AM Faith has responded
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 03-23-2014 2:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 75 of 137 (722585)
03-23-2014 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
03-22-2014 6:55 PM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
You're right that I didn't take into account that the condition of Siccar Point now exposes a lot more than would have been exposed in the past and there's no way to tell how much when.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2014 6:55 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:35 AM Faith has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017