Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1456 of 2887 (830596)
04-03-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1454 by dwise1
04-03-2018 4:21 AM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
You are continuing the ad hominem attack here, bringing in things that have nothing to do with the film. The film is a very general presentation of the YEC understanding of the formation of the Grand Canyon and other strata by the worldwide Flood, followed by a very general presentation of animals as varying only within the Kind, basically my own two favorite arguments. Kent Hovind isn't even mentioned in the film, and Austin doesn't discuss anything but the general view of the Grand Canyon.
Seems reasonable to me to assume that the dating system has been falsified by presenting a dinosaur skull and getting a date that contradicts the standard idea of the age of dinosaurs. Going on and on about misleading the dating experts isn't a very convincing tactic. They got it wrong about the dinosaur. I'm sure there ARE many conditions in which they would also get it wrong about other things. That proves them wrong, DW, it just does, but you attack the very scientific method of proving them wrong instead.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1454 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2018 4:21 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1457 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2018 2:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1465 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2018 11:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1474 by Percy, posted 04-04-2018 10:16 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1457 of 2887 (830599)
04-03-2018 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by Faith
04-03-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
quote:
Seems reasonable to me to assume that the dating system has been falsified by presenting a dinosaur skull and getting a date that contradicts the standard idea of the age of dinosaurs
Is it reasonable if the result could easily be produced by a small amount of contamination ? You wouldn’t use carbon dating to date a dinosaur skull because it can’t date anything that old. And, it is quite likely that 50,000 years was the limit at the time of the test (it was the limit for a while - it’s greater now, but still nowhere near even half a million years). Basically any measurable radiocarbon - no matter where it came from - would give an age at the limit of the method as it then stood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1458 of 2887 (830603)
04-03-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1436 by Faith
04-01-2018 8:45 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Faith writes:
Just a brief report on the 2017 film "Is Genesis History" in which Del Tackett (the Truth Project) interviews creationists about Geology.
Haven't read through the thread yet, but in case no one's mentioned this the flim's at Netflix: Is Genesis History. Where are you viewing it?
There's also a website: Is Genesis History? - The Documentary Film with Del Tackett. There's a page with links to discussions for each segment of the film if you click on "Seen the film? Dig deeper."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1436 by Faith, posted 04-01-2018 8:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1459 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 3:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1461 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2018 6:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1459 of 2887 (830605)
04-03-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1458 by Percy
04-03-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
I'm watching it at Netflix, I'm surprised I left that out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1458 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1460 of 2887 (830609)
04-03-2018 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1437 by edge
04-01-2018 10:27 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
There were a couple of your points I didn't understand. This is one:
edge writes:
First of all, rapid deposition does not create sorted, tabular extensive deposits. If that were so, then the debris from Mount Saint Helens would look like the Coconino sandstone.
And this is the other:
And of course we get different methods using different radiometric techniques.
Did you mean "different ages"? If so then I can't see how that's true beyond a few percent. Different methods won't yield identical ages, but don't they usually yield ages within the error ranges or at least pretty close? For example, you say:
However, a billion years is not going to turn into 6ky under any circumstance.
But different methods won't yield something like a billion years versus 900 million years in most circumstances, either. Unless there are confounding factors, different methods still yield pretty similar ages. For instance, looking at Table 4.1 in Dalrymple's book, the ages of the different methods (3 different methods in some cases) differ by no more than 5%. And Dalrymple's book is nearly 30 years old - techniques have improved and new dating methods have been introduced, and we still have broad agreement across all the dating methods, no matter what is dated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by edge, posted 04-01-2018 10:27 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1462 by edge, posted 04-03-2018 9:27 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1461 of 2887 (830610)
04-03-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1458 by Percy
04-03-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Haven't read through the thread yet, but in case no one's mentioned this the flim's at Netflix
I mentioned that in the first sentence of Message 1453. I figured that that way others who want to comment on it will be able to watch it. I also mentioned the Wikipedia article which supplies a lot more background information on the movie as well as its reception, including the complaint by philosopher Paul Nelson, who was interviewed in the film, that the film distorted his arguments and presented "a false dichotomy" between naturalistic evolution and young Earth creationism while omitting other viewpoints. Other complaints came from those other view points, OECs, that the film presented YEC as the only alternative to the scientific view.
There's also a website: Is Genesis History? - The Documentary Film with Del Tackett. There's a page with links to discussions for each segment of the film if you click on "Seen the film? Dig deeper."
I followed the links but couldn't find any discussion, just more exposition and a link to the segment of the movie.
ABE:
I just found a review of the movie on biologos by a former YEC: A Former Young-Earth Creationist Responds to Is Genesis History? by Mike Beidler. His main complaint is that the movie ignores the existence of all other views, creating a false dichotomy in which YEC is the only alternative.
Share and enjoy!
Edited by dwise1, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1458 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1462 of 2887 (830612)
04-03-2018 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1460 by Percy
04-03-2018 6:30 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Did you mean "different ages"?
Yes, I was a bit rushed at the time.
If so then I can't see how that's true beyond a few percent. Different methods won't yield identical ages, but don't they usually yield ages within the error ranges or at least pretty close?
Sure, I don't think I stated an actual difference, in fact at one point, I said 'slightly different ags'.
For example, you say: "However, a billion years is not going to turn into 6ky under any circumstance."
But different methods won't yield something like a billion years versus 900 million years in most circumstances, either.
Well, that's the range of uncertainty that YEC needs. And if you misapply method (like carbon-dating), you could come up with that kind of difference.
Unless there are confounding factors, different methods still yield pretty similar ages. For instance, looking at Table 4.1 in Dalrymple's book, the ages of the different methods (3 different methods in some cases) differ by no more than 5%. And Dalrymple's book is nearly 30 years old - techniques have improved and new dating methods have been introduced, and we still have broad agreement across all the dating methods, no matter what is dated.
But YECs are not so constrained.
I was entertaining not just the alledged difference in dating, but the misapplication and poor methodology by YECs. Sorry for the confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1460 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 6:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1469 by Percy, posted 04-04-2018 7:42 AM edge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1463 of 2887 (830613)
04-03-2018 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1455 by Faith
04-03-2018 2:22 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
The film gives the YEC interpretation of various facts as against the conventional interpretation, and gives the reasoning for it. It's a way to find out the YEC point of view.
Yes, as I pointed out. In fact, I specifically cited a skeptic's review on Netflix who gave it high marks specifically for that reason. So since you aren't responding to what I wrote, then just what do you think that you're responding to?
Another good documentary that presents the creationist side is the 2014 HBO documentary, Questioning Darwin (link is to the video on YouTube). Most of the footage is of creationists, many of them pastors, expressing their reasons for rejecting and opposing evolution and the rest is of non-creationist scholars and scientists and some biographical information on Charles Darwin.
I identified Del Tackett with the Truth Project because that's what I know him for, not because there is any necessary connection with this film that I know of. The Truth Project was a very good presentation of the Biblical worldview.
Which is what I wrote, so just what are you imagining to be responding to? Were you confused because I presented facts and an honest description of how I had arrived at those facts?
At first it appeared that the movie was part of the Truth Project, which didn't seem right because the Truth Project was created as an educational resource for use by Christians; ie, intended for internal consumption. Of course, that is not to say that some Christians who buy it won't try to use it for proselytizing, but that was not the stated intention of the producers of the Truth Project.
"Creation science" is an entirely different beast. The anti-evolution movement created it as a deliberate deception intended to fool the court system, state governments, school boards, and the public into allowing them to remove evolution from the schools. The anti-evolution movement needed to create their deception because the striking down of their precious "monkey laws" in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) meant that any attempt to bar the teaching of evolution because of religious beliefs would likewise be struck down in court (something they learned the hard way in court in the late-60's/early-70's).
"Creation science" is used for internal consumption by YECs, but is also used heavily to proselytize non-YECs and non-Christians. If a "creation science" movie is only viewed by YEC audiences, then it is not being used to proselytize (even though it might motivate some members of the audience to use it to proselytize), but if that movie is presented to the general public then the spectre of proselytizing rears its ugly head. Expanding the movie's distribution by placing it on Netflix does just that.
It would go against the Truth Project's stated raison d'tre for them to engage in proselytizing by distributing a creationist movie on a medium like Netflix, which is what such a move puzzled me. But then I researched further and found that "Is Genesis History?" is not connected with the Truth Project -- the only connection is in the person of Del Tackett, who served only as the narrator and apparently wasn't involved in the production of the film.
So what was your problem?
Why would a presentation of the YEC or Biblical point of view be proselytizing any more than a presentation of the evolution or natural science point of view would be?
Absolutely no problem with an honest factual presentation. Definite problems with a propaganda piece filled with lies and deliberate attempts to deceive and manipulate the audience. Most presentations fall somewhere on the spectrum between those two extremes. Given the nature of "creation science" and its claims, "creation science" presentations tend to cluster close to the negative pole; that's just the nature of the beast.
Don't we have a right to disagree with you?
Yes, though it would be nice for you to use valid reasons for disagreeing. Plus, we have a right to disagree with your disagreement, especially with how you do it.
I'd really like to know Austin's response to the accusation that he was lying when he presented uniformitarianism too literally for your taste. One doesn't normally encounter specific enough descriptions of how a particular layer was formed anyway so the natural thing to do is suppose incremental accumulation. You don't quote him so for all I know you got it wrong anyway.
Yeah, right, I'm supposed to have committed to memory an article I read in 1991, one of a great many that I during my research at that time, just so I could quote it to you verbatim 27 years later. Sheesh!
And my personal taste has nothing whatsoever to do with what he had written. He presented that extremely strict uniform-rate-of-accumulation model as the standard model used by geologists. IOW, he was misrepresenting what geologist thought. Now you might try to claim that he simply didn't know any better, but that would be wrong because he most certainly did know better. Here is a list of Steve Austin's degrees taken from creation.com:
quote:
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979
That article was dated from the 1970's, when he was working on his doctorate, so he had gotten very far in his education in geology. Those are all secular universities, so it was standard geology that he was learning.
He knew exactly what geologists thought about how the layers of that formation would have formed and that it most definitely would not have been at a strictly uniform and unvarying rate over millions of years.
That means that he knew full well that he was misrepresenting geological thought and that he was doing so deliberately. Hence, he deliberately lied. There is no other conclusion we can arrive at ... except for extreme stupidity, but we know that's not the case because a person that stupid could not have survived a doctoral program.
So then, the only possible conclusion is that he deliberately lied.
There have been other cases. For example a CompuServe creationist cited Austin on polystrate trees having cited another article about polystrate trees with their root systems extending through the coal seam under them. When I looked up that article (Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.), it stated in no uncertain terms that those trees' roots did not extend through the coal seams.
As has been pointed out many times before, there are many conditions and events that can cause a radiometric date to be invalid; eg, contamination, partial melting, applying an inappropriate test (eg, radiocarbon testing something inorganic that's older than 50,000 years). A lot of the geochronology literature is devoted to reporting such cases -- that is where creationists have been getting their examples of anomalous ages (eg, Woodramparre's list of more than 300 bad dates, though ironically most of the bad dates are too young, which invalidates his objection -- reposted at https://morton-yec-archive.blogspot.com/...age-of-earth.html).
One creationist activity which has become popular is to use the methods of spotting a sample that would give an invalid date to find a sample to take in for radiometric dating, then publish how that radiometric dating method was flawed and all radiometric dating is false, etc. Those who follow Austin more closely have reported him engaging in that kind of activity. One example is cited in that article I cited as a reference: A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.
Dr. Austin has displayed too much dishonesty for us to trust everything he says.
Austin didn't mention any Dating Project that I recall but I'm going to watch it again so I'll find out for sure.
Again, I don't have time to watch the film yet, so I wouldn't know yet. Since he was in the film at the Grand Canyon, as I've heard, my mind made that connection. If results from that project are presented in the film, there's no reason to assume that the project would be named, nor would it need to be Austin presenting those results. For that matter, the creationist being interviewed would not be expected to provide any kind of bibliography for any claims or figures he presents -- that's just in the nature of the medium, ie film, that things will be said without citing the sources. And unless you can go to their source in order to verify their claim, you have no way of knowing whether what they just said is true.
Three quick examples of that:
  • Duane Gish lying on national TV by claiming a fictitious bullfrog protein which shows humans to be more closely related to bullfrogs. Besides the initial lie, Gish went on with lie after lie claiming that he did indeed have documentation and he promised to provide it, but of course never could -- see The Bullfrog Affair
  • Henry Morris in debate claiming that a 1976 NASA document shows that if the moon were indeed ancient it should be covered by a layer of dust more than 200 feet thick. I found that document, but it was actually printed in 1967 and it did not support Morris' claim. Instead, Morris' claim came from his actual source, creationist Harold Slusher, who had created a formula that had extraneous factors which inflated his results by a factor of 10,000, such that when we correct for that we get a dust layer a third of an inch thick for a 4.5 billion year old moon. This started out with Morris just not knowing that his claim was bogus, but then he and Gish engaged in a cover-up in which they were both lying out of their asses -- see Moon Dust
  • Mr. Kent Hovind, from various sources including his seminar videos, claiming that at the rate that the sun is losing mass as it "burns up its fuel" that 5 billion years ago the sun would have been so extremely large and massive that it would have sucked the earth in. But if you do the math instead of a lot of hand-waving, you find that the sun's mass would have been marginally greater 5 billion years ago, by a few hundredths of one percent. When I asked him for his source and calculations, he stonewalled me, doing everything he could to avoid any discussion of his claim while claiming that he did have the calculations. Again, the lying started in the cover-up -- see Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim
In the first case, Gish had to be asked for his source and he never provided it (actually, he did, when he said it was from a joke he had overheard). In the second, I wrote the ICR for the source and took my research from there. In the third, I had to do the math to find the truth, getting nothing from Hovind except for his original claims.
The key point in those three cases is that the creationists made false claims to the public, most of whom undoubtedly took them at face value and believed what they were told. But when we try to verify them we find that they are false. And frankly, that's what I've been finding with every creationist claim so far ... well, at least for the past 36 years.
So then, everything that those creationists say in that film, what will happen when we try to verify them? Based on 36 years of experience, I have a very good idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1455 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 2:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1464 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 10:24 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1464 of 2887 (830614)
04-03-2018 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1463 by dwise1
04-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
He knew exactly what geologists thought about how the layers of that formation would have formed and that it most definitely would not have been at a strictly uniform and unvarying rate over millions of years.
That means that he knew full well that he was misrepresenting geological thought and that he was doing so deliberately. Hence, he deliberately lied. There is no other conclusion we can arrive at ... except for extreme stupidity, but we know that's not the case because a person that stupid could not have survived a doctoral program.
So then, the only possible conclusion is that he deliberately lied.
Your conclusion, however, isn't based on anything you've actually shown to be true, but on your own certainty that he "would have" known he was not representing what he himself had been taught. Again, based on your own personal idea of what he would have been taught, not on actual knowledge of what he was actually taught. As I said, those of us outside academe never get any explanation of how layers were supposedly deposited in any way tht would contradict the incremental accumulation idea, so why should we assume such a contradiction is taught in the universities either?.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1463 by dwise1, posted 04-03-2018 10:08 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1466 by dwise1, posted 04-04-2018 1:26 AM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1465 of 2887 (830615)
04-03-2018 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by Faith
04-03-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
You are continuing the ad hominem attack here, bringing in things that have nothing to do with the film.
Again, I have not seen the film yet and probably won't be able to until June, what with a lot of school work followed by being out of the country.
And when somebody has demonstrated a history of dishonesty, pointing that out is not ad hominem. Rather, it is a warning that you cannot take everything he says at face value. Ignoring that warning would be like believing everything (or anything) that Trump says or thinking that you're actually going to get anything Mitch McConnell has promised to you.
... , followed by a very general presentation of animals as varying only within the Kind, basically my own two favorite arguments.
Looking through the notes at the film's site, it looked like "the basic felid kind" was covered. I especially like that one, since it was while discussing it that we got you to think through the process of how all these different kinds of "cat" descended from that original "basic felid kind". In that process, you showed entirely on your own that continued micro-evolution results in macro-evolution. Of course, the instant we pointed out to you what you had done, you panicked and started redefining the world (which only works in law and in theology). Too bad, you nearly woke up there.
Seems reasonable to me to assume that the dating system has been falsified by presenting a dinosaur skull and getting a date that contradicts the standard idea of the age of dinosaurs.
You have got to be kidding! Having you learned anything at all after all these years of having everything explained to you?
Here is what you appear to be replying to in my Message 1454:
DWise1 writes:
There is a troubling practice among creationists. They will find some kind of fossil that they will submit to laboratories for inappropriate testing. For example, there was one Youtube video in which Mr. Kent Hovind had submitted a dinosaur skull for radio-carbon dating and faked surprise that it was dated at about 50,000 years. Hovind kept going on and on about this anomalous age while the video's producer kept superimposing, "There's no f***ing carbon!"
OK, the dating system we are talking about is carbon-14, AKA radiocarbon. It can only be used to date organic material up to 50,000 years old. Organic material because it's based on the carbon-14 taken in by the organism from the atmosphere, something that inorganic material would not do. The limit of 50,000 years is because with a half-life of 5,730 40 years, virtually all of the C-14 in a sample would have decayed away into nitrogen-14, leaving no more C-14 in the sample. A zero amount of C-14 would give an age of 50,000 years, regardless of how many millions of years ago that sample had reached the point of zero C-14.
Faith, I know that radiocarbon dating has been explained to you many times. Why do you still not understand any part of it? Why are you so incapable of learning anything?
Here's an analogy that might help, even though you have more than proven yourself to be a lost cause (at least somebody else reading this might learn something).
You have something that you want to weigh, a car. How would we weigh it? With a scale. Now, making a simple assumption that whatever scale we use does not break the scale, what scale would we use to measure the weight of our car: a kitchen scale (range 0 to 6.6 lb), a bathroom scale (0 to 400 lb), or a truck scale (0 to 15,000 lb)? Now, if you place a weight on a scale that is more than its maximum weight, then the scale displays its maximum weight -- we are assuming a regular mechanical scale, not an electronic one).
So, let's choose the kitchen scale. We put our car on it and it gives the car's weight as 6.6 pounds. Well, that's obviously not right!
Now let's choose the bathroom scale. It gives the car's weight as 400 pounds, which also obviously not right.
Therefore, you assume with your messed up logic that weighing things with scales does not work and that you have falsified that method.
But did you really falsify the method? Or did you only succeed in demonstrating how incredibly stupid you were for using the wrong scales?
You say that it's reasonable to use radiocarbon dating to date the fossil of a dinosaur skull, but I say that it is sheer idiocy. Here are the reasons why it cannot work:
  1. The fossil is much older than the 50,000 year limit. It's like sticking a one-ton car on a scale that can only measure up to 6.6 pounds; the highest weight that the scale can give you is 6.6 pounds. The maximum age that radiocarbon dating can possibly give you is 50,000 years, so if you use it on something billions of years old, it's still only going to be able to come up with 50,000 years.
  2. There's no f***ing carbon! All organic material in the skull has been replace with minerals. That means that whatever C-14 that was in there is gone, both through decay but also through replacement by minerals. If there is no C-14 to be detected, then you get the maximum age which is 50,000 years.
Obviously, it is extremely unreasonable to use radiocarbon dating to date a dinosaur skull. Choosing to use the wrong dating test does not invalidate that test, but rather it invalidates you! You did an incredibly stupid thing, so you are that one who is defective, not the test.
Now, obviously you are just too ignorant to realize what you're doing, as you have demonstrated. But these professional creationists who submit samples for dating that they know will yield wrong dates are doing so with the knowledge of what they are doing, with the knowledge that they are creating a lie in order to practice deception.
OK, maybe not Kent Hovind. He might be too stupid to know what he's doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 2:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1466 of 2887 (830616)
04-04-2018 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1464 by Faith
04-03-2018 10:24 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Your conclusion, however, isn't based on anything you've actually shown to be true, but on your own certainty that he "would have" known he was not representing what he himself had been taught. Again, based on your own personal idea of what he would have been taught, not on actual knowledge of what he was actually taught. As I said, those of us outside academe never get any explanation of how layers were supposedly deposited in any way tht would contradict the incremental accumulation idea, so why should we assume such a contradiction is taught in the universities either?.
And here I thought that your support for using radiocarbon dating on a dinosaur skull was the stupidest thing I'd heard you say. This is just unbelievable.
Now, I could see how you could not know what a geology student had learned if he were in a Christian college, especially a creationist one. For example, in the late 1980's the ICR was offering a post-graduate masters of science degree, but then they lost their state accreditation and there was a big legal battle over that. Later the ICR moved to Texas thinking that it would be easier there, but it wasn't.
Part of the process in California was that a visiting committee would tour the ICR's facilities and report on their findings; I obtained a copy of that report. The committee observed a microbiology class and their guide pointed out that they used the exact same textbook as secular universities use. But what they observed was that the entire class was going through their books with a black felt marker and under the direction of their teacher they were marking over the parts that they don't believe. They were literally redacting their own textbooks, censoring out the parts that their teacher decided they don't believe.
On a side note, Glenn R. Morton and his fellow creationist geologists learned their geology from the ICR. The main thing that they were taught was geological facts that did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning, basically the same approach in that microbiology class. Of course, those geological facts do actually exist, so being faced with them day after day with no way to resolve them with their creationist training which had left them completely unprepared for handling the truth, of course they suffered crises of faith.
So, if someone learned a science at a "true Christian" college, then it's anybody's guess what they had learned and not learned and mislearned.
Not so in a secular university -- please note that all of Austin's degrees are from secular universities. Especially in the sciences, they all teach essentially the same thing, in part because they use a lot of the same textbooks and in part because they are accredited, meaning that they must teach essentially the same things (otherwise, transferring credits between schools would be impossible). Your excuse of "maybe they didn't teach him that stuff" is absolute nonsense.
If somebody has earned a degree from an accredited secular university (had to specify, since there are Christian school accrediting services who would doubtless have different standards than secular accrediters), then you have a very good idea what he's been taught.
If it's a math degree, then you know that he had to have had algebra, calculus, and analytic geometry. It would be quite reasonable to expect him to know exponents and logarithms and much more.
If it's an electrical engineering degree, then it would be quite reasonable to expect him to know math at least up through calculus and fundamental physics (not physics for poets, but rather the real stuff that uses calculus). You would also expect him to know circuit analysis, time-domain analysis, frequency-domain analysis, and electronics.
If it's a geology degree (not from a creationist institute), especially a post-graduate degree (eg, MS Geology), then it would be quite reasonable to expect him to know geology: geological processes for erosion, sedimentation, strata formation, etc, on both physical and chemical levels. In either the first or second class, he should have learned what uniformitarianism really is (HINT: it has nothing to do with things happening gradually at a uniform rate). He would also learn the properties of the different kinds of strata and how they form -- some are indeed slow and gradual as fine particulate matter settles (obviously impossible during a raging flood), while others form more rapidly and episodically.
The idea that an entire formation comprised of different kinds of strata would have formed in the manner that Stuart Nevins described is not part of current geological thought. Not only would it not be taught to new students, but it would be un-taught; ie, they would be taught that it is a mistaken idea. That should happen in their first year, most likely in their first class. Therefore, somebody who has earned his MS Geology would have known that for at least six years.
I repeat, it is very reasonable to expect someone with a proper geology degree to know what current geological thought is. Your claim that they wouldn't is nothing but nonsense.
Stuart Nevins, MS Geology, knew full well what current geological thought was so when he mispresented that idea as part of current geological thought when he knew full well that it wasn't, then, yes, he was deliberately lying.
Yes, he was just feeding his readers with the misinformation that they already believed. But that was an opportunity for him to teach them the truth, yet he opted for the lie.
As I said, those of us outside academe never get any explanation of how layers were supposedly deposited in any way tht would contradict the incremental accumulation idea, so why should we assume such a contradiction is taught in the universities either?.
The universities would teach how layers are actually deposited, including how formations of different strata form. Stuart Nevins' slow accumulation of the entire formation idea would have buried in the first year, so it would not interfere with them learning the actual geological processes involved in actual stratum formation.
As for the problem that you outside of academia do not know how layers are deposited, it's not like it's some kind of big secret that they're keeping from you.
Learn it! Seek that knowledge; it's not going to come to you, so you have to go to it. Get a university level textbook that describes geological processes. Contact a geologist (eg, call or email the geology department of a college or university) and ask for recommendations. There might even be some other educational materials.
I know that keeping yourself ignorant is part of your religion, but I still think it's a bad idea. And if you start to learn how geological processes work, then that should improve your own musings and keep you from writing so much stupid stuff about geology. It's a win-win! What's not to like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by Faith, posted 04-03-2018 10:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1467 by Faith, posted 04-04-2018 2:02 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1467 of 2887 (830617)
04-04-2018 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1466 by dwise1
04-04-2018 1:26 AM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Funny, in all that verbiage I don't see anything but your own personal belief that he "would have" known it as you see it, not a single actual fact. You go on and on and on about extraneous information and don't even give a single fact about what the textbook or any given geology course actually teaches about how strata are formed, and yet on the basis of what you think to be "reasonable" you accuse the man of being a liar. Even just to claim he's wrong without calling him a liar should require more actual evidence than you are producing. Just find an online standard geology source if nothing else. There's tons of geology stuff online, why rely on your own personal supposition?. It's not enough to justify calling the man a liar.
The very first rule of dealing with someone's work ought to be giving him the benefit of the doubt, and in your case there's a lot of doubt.
I've actually read a fair amount of standard geology and I have NEVER run across a description of how the strata in the geo column are thought to have formed. It may be there and I didn't read it for some reason, but I'm certain I've never run across such a description. Besides having used online sources many times, I happen to have two standard geology textbooks I've consulted a lot, and I've read Dr. Adequate's book too, or most of it, plus a couple of books on the geology of the Grand Canyon, though since I moved a few months ago I don't have them available. They are probably in storage.
This does not cut it:
The universities would teach how layers are actually deposited, including how formations of different strata form.
Not "WOULD teach," you have to show they DO teach it. Or better yet that the classes Austin took or the textbooks he used taught it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 1466 by dwise1, posted 04-04-2018 1:26 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1468 by dwise1, posted 04-04-2018 3:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1490 by edge, posted 04-04-2018 9:07 PM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1468 of 2887 (830619)
04-04-2018 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1467 by Faith
04-04-2018 2:02 AM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Do you really think that university geology classes do not teach geology? And do you really think that the entire geology degree programs for a BS and an MS do not teach the students what current geology thought is? That is the most bat-shit crazy nonsense I've ever heard!
You are the one claiming that Steve Austin did not know what current geology thought was, so the burden of proof is on you! You have to present the proof that he was either too ignorant or too stupid to have known that he was presenting a nonsensical claim. And you have to present your proof that university geology departments do not teach current geology thought.
Your position is that he made that false claim because he was too ignorant and/or too stupid. My position is that his ability to have complete two non-trivial degrees and get into a doctorate program requiring non-trivial work precludes the possibility that he was as ignorant and/or stupid as your position requires.
My position makes sense, whereas yours does not. You need to provide the proof for your position.
I've actually read a fair amount of standard geology and I have NEVER run across a description of how the strata in the geo column are thought to have formed.
Then you've been reading the wrong books. That you persist in displaying abject ignorance of geological processes support the idea that you've been reading the wrong books.
That is why I recommend that you talk to a geologist. A geologist would be able to recommend the right books to you, as well as the right keywords to search for it on-line. And please don't start screaming at me hysterically like you did for an extended period of time (days) the first time I suggested that you talk with a geologist.
Not "WOULD teach," you have to show they DO teach it. Or better yet that the classes Austin took or the textbooks he used taught it.
And just how am I supposed to access such information. You're using that typical Christian dirty trick of "unanswerable question/impossible task". Why is honesty so foreign to Christians?
But rather, you are claiming that universities do not teach how layers are actually deposited. I find your claim to be mind-bogglingly unlikely, since no geology program would have any valid reason to leave such an appalling gap in their students' education -- unlike Christian education in which appalling gaps in education is a feature instead of a bug. Show us your proof that universities do not teach that!
And yet again, talk to a geologist! A geologist would be able to tell you what is taught.
And yet talking to an actual geologist is the last thing you want to do. Why is that? Is it because then you'd know the truth and could no longer play these doubting games?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1467 by Faith, posted 04-04-2018 2:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1469 of 2887 (830620)
04-04-2018 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1462 by edge
04-03-2018 9:27 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
Thanks for the info, I feel much better now.
edge writes:
Sure, I don't think I stated an actual difference, in fact at one point, I said 'slightly different ags'.
There might have been another typo in your Message 1437 because what you actually said was, "We are always measuring slightly different things." I wasn't sure what that meant, either, but if you meant "slightly different ages" then I understand now. Thanks.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1462 by edge, posted 04-03-2018 9:27 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1470 of 2887 (830621)
04-04-2018 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1446 by Faith
04-02-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Creationist film "Is Genesis History?"
I'm slowly making my way through the thread, and no one responded to this post, so I'll give it a go.
Faith writes:
The point is that sedimentation is taking place on the same scale as your 'strata'.
The point of the comment about the extent of the Coconino sandstone was that sedimentation ON LAND, like the Coconino, is not occurring on that same scale, which is an argument against the OE theory.
PaulK used the example of the Sahara Desert, which is fairly extensive, so deserts on large scales *are* occurring today. Climate conditions of all types have likely existed in all periods of Earth's history.
But the extent of the Coconino sandstone does not mean it was was a desert of that size all at the same time, since climatic conditions of a desert and the desert's extent vary over time. The Coconino was buried over a period of 5 to 10 million years by a generally transgressing sea, but climate conditions can change in periods of less than a hundred thousand years, and desert boundaries can change. The Sahara goes through wet and dry periods on such a timescale, and the region of the Coconino likely experienced such changes. The sand is formed during dry periods when smaller/lighter dust/dirt particles would be carried away by wind, leaving behind the heavier sand. During wet periods the sand would remain and soil formation would resume as well as the return of vegetation. The sand of the Coconino was buried by a gradually transgressing sea following the processes of Walther's Law.
Here are images of deserts at different climatic periods. The deep Sahara is on the left, while the American southwest is on the right. They both have a great deal of sand, but the American Southwest is wetter and has some soil and vegetation. I present these images to illustrate just how different various portions of the Coconino could be, both over geographic extent and over time:
That is not the geologic column on the seafloor.
Every point on the solid surface of the Earth, including the seafloor, is the top of a geologic column. Any sediments accumulating at any point on the Earth's solid surface are contributing to the geologic column.
Presumably according to OE theory the geo column formed slowly on land over millions of years, and the model for it is supposed to be today's sedimentation. Doesn't work.
But you can't explain in what way it doesn't work. In fact, given how sediment just alternately accumulates and transports until it reaches a lowest point and is buried, it isn't possible that it couldn't work. Erosion and weathering creates sediments, and the sediments are gradually transported to the lowest point where they make a permanent contribution to the geologic column.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1446 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 3:45 PM Faith 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