|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Now consider that there are many things younger than the earth that can be found ... and all they show is that the earth is at least as old as these things but could be older.
I like to ask young earthers, exactly what ages these 'other clocks' provide. I never get an answer...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Now consider that there are many things younger than the earth that can be found ... and all they show is that the earth is at least as old as these things but could be older. Coincidentally, the age of the earth is taken up in this weeks episode of Cosmos.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
The Adventist GRI was indeed more upfront about YEC problems in the past, and provided some good information for me in my journey away from YEC. They discussed things like palaeomagnetism, the Oklo phenomenon, early geologists being unable to find evidence for their YEC beliefs, and were able to say in 1981 "At present there are no data that independently suggest either 6 day creation or placement of such an event in the last 8000 years." They then listed about a dozen indicators of an old Earth.
With the current ultra-conservative leadership of the Adventist church, they will be more mainstream YEC these days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Been busy all week, just getting around to this.
AGAIN let me point out the alternative view of the formation of the strata by Establishment Geology: that if there is a layer containing marine fossils, or even a limestone layer, they postulate, no they assume, no they call it a fact, that that layer was formed right there on that spot in a marine environment. Science assumes nothing other than that the physical laws we know and love are at work everywhere throughout the universe. Science assumes, for example, that limestone layers formed in a way that obeys these physical laws. That means slow and steady deposition over the eons in a warm shallow sea. You, on the other hand, assume that what happened is whatever you make up in order to satisfy your religious myths. You claim your scenarios all happened naturally but don't seem to realize how severely they contradict natural laws. To have a rational discussion with you we need you to understand the explanations of how you're violating natural physical laws. This almost never happens. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You, on the other hand, assume that what happened is whatever you make up in order to satisfy your religious myths. You claim your scenarios all happened naturally but don't seem to realize how severely they contradict natural laws. To have a rational discussion with you we need you to understand the explanations of how you're violating natural physical laws. This almost never happens. That's one of the reasons I've started using 'magic' in response, where magic would be defined as "anything not occurring according to natural laws" ... 'magic water' sorts fossils and carves canyons deep underwater ... deposits gravels on top of silts ... flows in 'magic' paths not defined by geographical or tectonic features ... Nothin like a little mushroom eh? Edited by RAZD, : starsby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Certainly, the Mississippi Delta has been accumulating for much more than 6ky.
Just one of those bald assertions geologists like to make and treat as fact without evidence and then they get all pushed out of shape if anyone questions it. It's only a bald assertion in the same way that "The sun rises every day" is a bald assertion. The reality is that it was a comment made in passing of a well known fact that is supported by mountains of research data. Any interpretation of that data that obeys the laws of physics can reach no other conclusions but that the Mississippi Delta is very old. To specifically rebut your implied accusation that an ancient Mississippi delta is devoid of supporting evidence here's a brief excerpt from the abstract of K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments:
The ratio of radiogenic argon 40 to potassium supplies information on the source or genesis of components of recent sediments. This is the initial investigation in a larger study on the history of illitic materials using dating techniques. In samples from the deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River, age values for the dominantly silt-sized material of the delta averaged 280 m.y., with little horizontal or vertical variation. If you could refrain from making obviously bogus accusations that require defense but contribute nothing to the discussion it would go a long way toward making discussion more productive. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
To specifically rebut your implied accusation that an ancient Mississippi delta is devoid of supporting evidence here's a brief excerpt from the abstract of K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments: Perhaps the issue here is that you are debating someone who rejects all of the science necessary to have a discussion. You have introduced evidence based on radiometric dating. But we all know that kind of evidence won't make the least impression on any creationist. Creationist don't use dating techniques other than Bible geology for anything that happened prior to the last two thousand years. And they aren't going to accept your dating either. Whether or not we think it is reasonable, when you debate someone who rejects the idea that atomic nuclei haven't always behaved the same, you have a tough road to travel. You can try citing the evidence that those things actually have been constant. RAZD likes citing SN1987A (I do too!) Others like pointing to the Oklo natural reactor evidence, but creationists just tune that stuff out. Bible geology should have been 'Bible genealogy' Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Nothin like a little mushroom eh? I must admit my first thought was cubensis or mexicana, but then realized it was because I am a product of time and space (California late 60s, most of 70s, New Mexico 80s and most of 90s). Magic Bus, cute Then I realized you are most likely referring to how fundies believe that of the four fundamental forces of physics, the weak nuclear force is good when it kills around 200,000 men. women, and children but bad when it is used to- gain knowledge in geology, physics, or medicine. Personally, I want no part of either the fundie version of God or of any self-righteous violator of the first commandment who egotistically presumes to speak for God. As the kids say "haters gotta hate" BTW - A plus from Archer Opterix? Welcome back and I hope to see more, especially your insightful comments. Edited by anglagard, : While some sage said absence makes the heart grow fonder, it just seems to make me rusty. Failed to include original quote from RAZD.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The way it was put it was a bald assertion, even a wild guess by the sound of it.
That 280 my statement is REALLY bizarre. I'm going with that quote that came up somewhere back there that said they were getting false readings on the age of the basement rocks of the GC perhaps because of water content or something like that. if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The way it was put it was a bald assertion, even a wild guess by the sound of it. Not every statement is accompanied by the evidence supporting the statement. That's going to be particularly the case for well studied and well known phenomena. Where you have doubts, it is a simple matter to ask for the evidence behind an assertion. You are free to then point out out any holes you see. You'll probably then note that at evidence weighing time, the people who have actually studied the evidence and have more knowledge of what the observations are have a distinct advantage over you in a debate. But you can counter all of that because they aren't going to be allowed to invent stuff that has not been shown to occur. You can challenge them for references for anything they assert.
if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider. How about some examples of what those things might be? Because citing something that is taken into account does not seem like much evidence of sloppiness.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
...because of water content or something like that. if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider. I see you admit you don't understand the argument presented about the water. Such problems are detectable and avoidable, as was discussed in the paper you don't understand. You don't even understand your problem. You are tying to discredit all radiometric dating. There is, of course, lots of evidence you ignore that radiometric dating is accurate. But you are trying to find a bad result or two. That's pointless A few errors don't matter. A lot of errors (presuming for the sake of argument that you can demonstrate a lot of error) don't matter. Why, even if you could demonstrate that the vast majority of radiometric dates are wrong that wouldn't matter. One correct radiometric date destroys your young earth. You need to demonstrate that all radiometric dates are wrong, every single one of them. The only way to do that is to find a systemic error that invalidates the whole kit and kaboodle. The RATE group, comprised of pretty much all the YECs that understand radiometric dating, acknowledged this fact. They tried to invoke accelerated nuclear day (AND), i.e. fast decay rates. This would indeed falsify the whole kit and kaboodle if it had happened. They failed miserably because their claimed evidence for such acceleration was bogus and AND would leave subtle traces such as no water on the molten surface of the Earth and all life gone twice over from radiation and heat. (They acknowledged these minor issues in 2005 and expressed hope that further research would lead to a solution. There has been no furhter research.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: The way it was put it was a bald assertion, even a wild guess by the sound of it. It was, as I said and that you ignored, only a bald assertion in the same way that "The sun rises every day" is a bald assertion. The reality is that it was a comment made in passing of a well known fact that is supported by mountains of research data. Any interpretation of that data that obeys the laws of physics can reach no other conclusions but that the Mississippi Delta is very old. And evidence exists, one item of which I presented and which you also ignored. You can pretend the evidence doesn't exist, but the mere fact there's something you're ignoring says it exists.
Faith writes: That 280 my statement is REALLY bizarre. Huh?
I'm going with that quote that came up somewhere back there that said they were getting false readings on the age of the basement rocks of the GC perhaps because of water content or something like that. if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider. But where's your evidence? This is just a bald assertion. There, we're even. If you'd like to discuss the "quote that came up somewhere back there" then you're going to have to look it up and provide a link or cut-n-paste it into your message. Can we get back to a normal evidence-based discussion now, the kind involving normal people who understand that one doesn't normally support every sentence with evidence, that evidence is normally only provided as needed or requested. Again, if you could refrain from making obviously bogus accusations that require defense but contribute nothing to the discussion it would go a long way toward making discussion more productive. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The way it was put it was a bald assertion, even a wild guess by the sound of it.
A guess, perhaps, but based on experience and, evidently, not too wild.
That 280 my statement is REALLY bizarre.
But it was also supported (assuming that you actually read our posts and the links). The earliest sediments a the base of the delta probably were deposited as the North American and Africa drifted apart.
Edited to add: One could argue that this was not really the Mississippi River, I suppose, but it does make sense. On the other hand, even the 'modern delta' accepted sediments in the Quaternary Period going back to 1.6 million years. Geologic sections through the Mississippi Embayment show that an enormous thickness of sediment has been deposited in southern Louisiana (Figure 3.2). During the Quaternary Period, or Ice Ages, (11,000 to 1.6 million years ago) the proto Mississippi River conveyed a significantly greater volume of water on a much steeper hydraulic grade. This allowed large quantities of graveliferous deposits beneath what is now New Orleans, reaching thicknesses of up to 3600 feet (Figures 3.2 and 3.3). These stiff undifferentiated Pleistocene sands and gravels generally lie between 40 and 150 feet beneath New Orleans, and much shallower beneath Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne (as one approaches the Pleistocene outcrop along the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain). Civil and Environmental Engineering This reference discusses deltaic sedimentation in the Mississippian embayment. Just a moment...
I'm going with that quote that came up somewhere back there that said they were getting false readings on the age of the basement rocks of the GC perhaps because of water content or something like that.
Please do.
if water content can mess up a reading, just THINK of all the errors you guys are refusing to consider.
Please document. AFAICS, you can say anything about this and just keep repeating it without support. Having said that, we do try to analyze pristine minerals. Edited by edge, : No reason given. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: That 280 my statement is REALLY bizarre. I realized later that you weren't saying "my statement" but that "my" meant "million years". So your response to an analysis of the data reported in the technical paper K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments is to call it "bizarre", supported only by a vague reference to something somewhere about a questionable date. I was able to track your reference down. It's from your Message 375. I replied in Message 403 and explained why the layer was redated, but you didn't respond and apparently feel free to ignore the explanation and just go on making your original claim. You're a piece of work. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So your response to an analysis of the data reported in the technical paper K-Ar Age Studies of Mississippi and Other River Sediments is to call it "bizarre", supported only by a vague reference to something somewhere about a questionable date. I was able to track your reference down. It's from your Message 375. I replied in Message 403 and explained why the layer was redated, but you didn't respond and apparently feel free to ignore the explanation and just go on making your original claim. You're a piece of work.
As usually happens when YECs analyze anything, they misconstrue. In this case, all of the dates are probably correct, it's just that they date things different from the age of sedimentation. The 280ma date is actually for the source rocks of the sediments, in other words, the rocks being eroded at the time, and we would expect them to be older. The 166ma date is for finer grained material that they think may have been mixed with another, younger source. On the other hand, I would submit that these might also contain 'authigenic' minerals (minerals created along with the cement that holds the grains together) precipitated at the time of deposition and reflecting the true age of the deposit. The basal unit sediments (650-690ma) are also detrital iand indicate a different source (Red River?) with older rocks in its drainage. The fact that the finer fraction, again older (similarly to the above), may again suggest an authigenic component.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024