Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 9:32 PM
349 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,730 Year: 27,336/21,208 Month: 1,249/1,714 Week: 92/365 Day: 48/44 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 85 (804011)
04-06-2017 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pressie
04-06-2017 5:39 AM


Re: Old earth models work
Faith, this needs to be repeated here. Old earth models are tested. Science.

A paper by eight professional geologists who are members of the Biblically conservative Presbyterian Church of America (PCA)
http://www.asa3.org/...ics/Physical%20Science/EarthAntiquity

From there.

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

Old earth models work and are employed by thousands of exploration and mining companies all over the world. Old earth models work. They put their money where their mouths are.

Creationists don't. They preach a lot. That's it.

Yes I understand your position but I am not preaching, I am describing observations that contradict the prevailing Old Earth explanation. I understand that your models "work" such as for the discovery of oil and minerals, but I dare to suggest that a lot of that is illusion, that the ancient-age time factor is really not important in that work, it can be done based purely on the physical facts in relative time -- that is, the order of deposition.

Anyway instead of just preaching the status quo as you are doing, why not address the observations I made about the strata, which do not fit the Old Earth explanation but are much better explained by rapid deposition: the straight flat layering, the sharp contacts between layers, the clearly differentiable layers, the oddly segregated fossil contents of different layers when you'd think more living things from earlier "periods" (lower layers) would be represented in later "periods (higher layers) than there actually are;, the absence of any erosion between layers on any scale remotely similar to the erosion that formed today's earth surface etc,

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 5:39 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2017 1:15 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 85 (804012)
04-06-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Pressie
04-06-2017 6:43 AM


Re: No way the strata represent great eras of time
We do know that some "strata" take millions of years to form and other "strata" take minutes to form.

Unsupported assertion is not considered to be a valid debate strategy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 6:43 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13309
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 85 (804013)
04-06-2017 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

you'd think more living things from earlier "periods" (lower layers) would be represented in later "periods (higher layers) than there actually are;

And why would you think that ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:39 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 34 of 85 (804018)
04-06-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
04-06-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Real world evidence
Hmmm. I have obtained radiocarbon dates of BC 2344, 2334, and 2306 in a couple of my excavations. Didn't see any evidence of floods.

Coyote, with all due respect I hope, this argument is really silly. I don't know what David's arguments amount to since I can't read the links, but most likely you are simply not seeing the evidence creationists identify for the Flood although it's probably there even where you are doing your dating. The claim is that there is enough observed evidence that doesn't fit the Old Earth model to call the dating methods into question. You need to respond to the claims of such evidence instead of just relying on your dating methods alone.

I also have continuity of mitochondrial DNA from before to after your 2348 BC date. That shows there was no population change.
Perhaps you should knock off your mathematical models and look at real-world evidence for a change?

Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world.

Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 04-06-2017 10:48 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2017 1:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 04-06-2017 1:56 PM Faith has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 35 of 85 (804020)
04-06-2017 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:25 PM


Re: Real world evidence
Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world.

For clarity, you're talking about looking at pictures on the internet, right? You're not talking about you, yourself, actually digging up rocks in the real world, correct?

Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

Well, it is a science thread. Where's the scientific evidence that doesn't fit the old model?

Looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 85 (804021)
04-06-2017 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
04-06-2017 1:15 PM


Change from layer to layer
you'd think more living things from earlier "periods" (lower layers) would be represented in later "periods (higher layers) than there actually are;

And why would you think that ?

Because evolution isn't all that pat. Former variations/races from which the later supposedly evolved, don't just disappear, replaced by the evolved form -- as evolutionists themselves are always pointing out -- the previous apes didn't go away when the higher apes evolved from them. What happens is that the former type also evolves somewhat as well unless the population is very large where changes wouldn't be dramatic, and those would go on multiplying and show up in the "later" stages along with the "evolved" forms.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, the "evolved" forms appear to have mostly or sompletely supplanted the forms from which they are supposed to have evolved, which simply are not represented in the "more recent" layers, not in the numbers one would expect for sure if at all, and in some cases not at all.

The whole idea of evolution from period to period is based on rather specific variations that happen to show up in the separate layers. There isn't any evidence that they (those in the higher layers) evolved from the former (those in the lower layers) at all, except the order of the layers itself, but they are most likely just other variations or races of the same creature, cousins if you will, that all existed at the same time.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2017 1:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2017 1:49 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13309
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 37 of 85 (804029)
04-06-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:39 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

Because evolution isn't all that pat. Former variations/races from which the later supposedly evolved, don't just disappear, replaced by the evolved form -- as evolutionists themselves are always pointing out -- the previous apes didn't go away when the higher apes evolved from them. What happens is that the former type also evolves somewhat as well unless the population is very large where changes wouldn't be dramatic, and those would go on multiplying and show up in the "later" stages along with the evolved forms.

Generally it is the groups that continue, not species. The "lower apes" might still exist as a group, but the species that existed when the "higher apes" branched off almost certainly do not. And even the larger groups tend to thin out over time (as tour would expect). Especially when mass extinctions occur. But we still have some dinosaurs (birds) and crocodiles and Cephalopoda and even velvet worms alive today.

So, if you mean species you are quite definitely wrong, and if you mean larger taxonomic groups then you definitely need to provide some quantification.

quote:

But that doesn't seem to be the case, the "evolved" forms appear to have mostly or sompletely supplanted the forms from which they are supposed to have evolved, which simply are not represented in the "more recent" layers, not in the numbers one would expect for sure if at all, and in some cases not at all.

Without knowing what "unevolved" forms you are talking about and without numbers - and an argument for those numbers this is just hopelessly vague. If there is any basis for your assertion you haven't provided it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:58 PM PaulK has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6025
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 85 (804030)
04-06-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:25 PM


Re: Real world evidence
Coyote, with all due respect I hope, this argument is really silly. I don't know what David's arguments amount to since I can't read the links, but most likely you are simply not seeing the evidence creationists identify for the Flood although it's probably there even where you are doing your dating. The claim is that there is enough observed evidence that doesn't fit the Old Earth model to call the dating methods into question. You need to respond to the claims of such evidence instead of just relying on your dating methods alone.

Your claim is that a religion-based belief disagrees with real-world evidence, so we have to discount the real-world evidence? All of it?

That's not the way science works, and I am, at least, following science and scientific evidence. So far, there is no scientific evidence that shows radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, and there is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows that it is. RAZD has provided that evidence in several threads on dating.

But I understand that creationists discount any evidence that disagrees with their beliefs, so no amount of evidence will suffice for them.

But for those who do follow evidence, Davidjay provided an "exact" date for the global flood, and I provided three radiocarbon dates I have personally obtained in the immediate "after flood" time period. Looking at my full list, I have obtained six radiocarbon dates in the century after Davidjay's "exact" date.

Unless you or some other creationist can show those dates are wrong -- and belief isn't enough -- then that evidence by itself disproves the global flood at Davidjay's date. Archaeologists all of the world have provided similar and even better evidence disproving the purported flood.

Well I am, and for all I know David is too, looking at real-world evidence (not scientific theories but physical observations) -- it's what I've been arguing here and everywhere else I've argued this -- observations of the real world.

Since these observations call the Old Earth model into question, they also call the dating methods into question, so you can't just keep pointing to those methods as if they trump everything else.

No, it is religious belief that causes creationists to call the dating methods into question. They are not able to show the methods are inaccurate, although they have tried for decades.

Until somebody can show that these dating methods are wrong anyone who follows the evidence must accept the results. You can't just hand-wave away any results you don't like.

That's where creation "science" differs from real science.


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

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

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:05 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 39 of 85 (804031)
04-06-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
04-06-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Old earth models work
Generally it is the groups that continue, not species. The "lower apes" might still exist as a group, but the species that existed when the "higher apes" branched off almost certainly do not.

But what I said was that the earlier form might also have evolved somewhat depending on how large the population was, I didn't claim the species continued exactly as it formerly existed -- although again depending on the size of the population it could have continued fairly recognizable.l But perhaps not. It's not important to the point, which is that there is no reason to suppose the former, OR other population that also evolved from it, just disappeared, but that seems to be what is observed in the layers, which gives the false impression of a supposedly more primitive form no longer existing while the evolved form for some reason proliferates in the higher layer, apparently completely supplanting the earlier form.

I'm getting my impression from all kinds of discussions and graphic representations of the fossils found in various layers, which amounts to the observation that there seems to be surprisingly little overlap from one layer to another compared to what one would expect based on evolutionary theory itself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2017 1:49 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2017 2:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 85 (804032)
04-06-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
04-06-2017 1:56 PM


Re: Real world evidence
No, it is religious belief that causes creationists to call the dating methods into question.

No you are wrong. It is observations of the real world that suggest a young earth that require calling the dating methods into question. You often make that false assertion about its being religion, but you just aren't thinking about the actual arguments that creationists make, that's just a blind bias of your own. (I'm not commenting on DavidJay's arguments since I don't know yet what they are)

They are not able to show the methods are inaccurate, although they have tried for decades.

I agree that the methods haven't been shown to be false, which is why I don't try to make that argument. I'm saying that the strata themselves don't fit the Old Earth model at all, in many ways I've mentioned, and that fact alone has to call the dating methods into question. You have to respond to these observations instead of just sticking to your dating methods.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 04-06-2017 1:56 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2017 2:41 PM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13309
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 41 of 85 (804033)
04-06-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
04-06-2017 1:58 PM


Re: Old earth models work
quote:

But what I said was that the earlier form might also have evolved somewhat depending on how large the population was, I didn't claim the species continued exactly as it formerly existed -- although again depending on the size of the population it could have continued fairly recognizable.l But perhaps not.

That depends on the time involved, and the selection pressures. The longer the time the more change you should expect.

quote:

It's not important to the point, which is that there is no reason to suppose the former, OR other population that also evolved from it, just disappeared, but that seems to be what is observed in the layers, which gives the false impression of a supposedly more primitive form no longer existing while the evolved form for some reason proliferates in the higher layer, apparently completely supplanting the earlier form.

Again this is just vague and without quantification. You don't even give any examples. You still haven't provided any support for your assertion.

quote:

I'm getting my impression from all kinds of discussions and graphic representations of the fossils found in various layers, which amounts to the observation that there seems to be surprisingly little overlap from one layer to another compared to what one would expect based on evolutionary theory itself.

And I have still no idea how you get that impression. You offer no basis for working out how many "should" be found or how many are found. Or even clearly stating what it is that you are (supposedly) counting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 1:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 85 (804034)
04-06-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
04-06-2017 1:36 PM


Re: Real world evidence
So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs?

Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2017 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2017 3:12 PM Faith has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5157
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 43 of 85 (804036)
04-06-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
04-06-2017 2:05 PM


Re: Real world evidence
Faith writes:

No you are wrong. It is observations of the real world that suggest a young earth that require calling the dating methods into question. You often make that false assertion about its being religion, but you just aren't thinking about the actual arguments that creationists make, that's just a blind bias of your own.

You have said many times that your belief in the bible is sacrosanct. You have said that where your interpretation of the bible differs from that of science, then the science is wrong.

I assume you haven't changed that position?

Assuming that to be the case, you are not looking at the evidence objectively. You can not. You have a pre-ordaned conclusion and you attempt to make everything fit that conclusion.

Science does the opposite - it follows the evidence wherever it goes, even if it means trashing earlier, heart-felt beliefs. We know this to be true because those that trashed the young earth ideas hated their own conclusions.

A professor of mine told me that 'where you stand determines what you are able to see.' Every so often you need to examine your global positioning.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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 40 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 3:09 PM Tangle has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26604
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 85 (804040)
04-06-2017 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tangle
04-06-2017 2:41 PM


Re: Real world evidence
The evidence is given, it is to be judged on its own merits, I'm not claiming anything from the Bible, The fact that it was my original inspiration is irrelevant. Deal with the observations given. If I'm not being objective prove it from the evidence given. Your belief in the ToE makesw you just as likely to be unable to be objective as anybody else with any bias of any kind. All you are doing is stating your own bias, not a valid argument. Deal with the evidence given. I'm describing real world facts. You have to address those facts not your prejudices about religion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2017 2:41 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2017 3:45 PM Faith has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 45 of 85 (804041)
04-06-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-06-2017 2:28 PM


Re: Real world evidence
So you're saying one can't make any true observations about say conditions on Mars unless one has been there? Or a geologist who has studied one feature of his science in great depth can't arrive at any true observations about some other facet of the science he hasn't actually experienced? Or nobody can talk about the molecular formula for water without having seen the oxygen and hydrogen atoms actually doing their thing? Did I have to be there when the apple fell on Newton's head to follow his analysis of the event? Is it possible to know anything about anything in the past when all that's available is written documents and maybe some photographs?

No, I'm saying that looking at pictures on the internet and going "looks like a flood to me!" is not observing evidence.

It's just a superficial reaction from an a priori position. There is no analysis or understanding, it is clearly and plainly wishful thinking.

Also, I suspect that a person could spend a lifetime in the Grand Canyon and not understand how it formed.

A child can spend 5 minutes looking at the river in the bottom and interpolate the vast amount of time it would take for it to carve that canyon.

If you didn't already believe that there had to have been a flood there, you'd prolly see it too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 2:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 04-06-2017 3:14 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017