Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So what about SILT and dating????
ralphperry 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5172 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 01-28-2010


Message 76 of 86 (544756)
01-28-2010 6:29 AM


I consider myself independent, motivated, ambitious, open-minded, and conscientious. I am pursuing a career and education in mental health and addictions. Someday, I hope to be a licensed professional...
Edited by ralphperry, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Ambiguate signature.

New York Singles

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 86 (544791)
01-28-2010 12:44 PM


Musings On The Thread
I just finished re-reading this thread from beginning to end. Several thoughts come to mind in all of this:
1) That the Biblical record does have it that there has been tectonic uplifting and that the oceans were once shallow as per scientific observation, though the interpretations of the PoVs do not agree.
2) If indeed the Biblical model is true, perhaps it would be impossible to know the element and chemical makeup of a pre-flood atmosphere relative to current dating methodology.
3) Since the Biblical record has it that significant underground water was released via the effect of the extraordinary volumn of water fallen from the atmosphere to earth on earth's crust, it would be difficult for creation floodists to verify data on how much this would factor in on the lowering of the ocean floors. Perhaps the reason the ocean crusts are observed to be much thinner average than the land crust is that the regions of the oceans were where the largest subterrain lakes (or small oceans) existed. Thus, perhaps, when they broke up, the earth surfaces in that region the lower ocean floors were formed. This would also account for, perhaps, some plate tectonic activity, a considerable amount of volcanic activity and account for some of the great volumn of ocean water observed presently.
To put it in the words of The Literalist, some musings.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 01-29-2010 7:28 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 86 (544894)
01-29-2010 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
01-28-2010 12:44 PM


Re: Musings On The Thread
Buzsaw writes:
1) That the Biblical record does have it that there has been tectonic uplifting and that the oceans were once shallow as per scientific observation...
"Scientific observation" implies something someone actually saw and recorded. Maybe "scientific evidence" would be a more appropriate term?
Anyway, what makes you think there's scientific evidence that ancient oceans were shallow?
2) If indeed the Biblical model is true, perhaps it would be impossible to know the element and chemical makeup of a pre-flood atmosphere relative to current dating methodology.
Things that actually happened and were real leave evidence behind, so I don't know why you say it would be impossible to know about things that you think the Bible claims happened in the past. But it would be impossible to find evidence for things that never actually happened.
Since the Biblical record has it that significant underground water was released via the effect of the extraordinary volumn of water fallen from the atmosphere to earth on earth's crust...etc...
More unsupported assertions, no evidence, and you're exhibiting the same pattern in other threads. In a recent post in another thread (Message 56) you said, "The science of all of this, of course, is beyond my knowledge." When this is the case it is good to follow this advice from Wittgenstein: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Way back in 2004 I wrote this to you (Message 40):
Percy replying to Buzsaw in 2004 writes:
But your lack of knowledge in this area is easily remedied: read a good geology book. I believe this is the same advice consistently given to you all along.
The complaint constantly leveled at you was that you kept up a continual stream of proposals that not only had no supporting evidence, but contradicted known facts and even violated the laws of physics. You then compounded this by not addressing the evidence presented to you across hundreds of messages, by not presenting any relevant evidence of your own, and all the while maintaining that ideas in violation of known scientific laws could somehow be acceptable as good science.
So stop bemoaning your ignorance by saying things like "don't know enough" and do something about it. That way you won't keep advancing "roll-your-eyes" kinds of ideas.
What I said then is just as true today. The same factors that caused you to decide to cease participation here some months ago are still fully in play, and I don't understand why you're back.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2010 12:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 8:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 86 (545212)
02-02-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
01-29-2010 7:28 AM


Re: Musings On The Thread
Percy writes:
"Scientific observation" implies something someone actually saw and recorded. Maybe "scientific evidence" would be a more appropriate term?
Anyway, what makes you think there's scientific evidence that ancient oceans were shallow?
Hi Percy. It has been my understanding that during the Ice Age the oceans were shallow enough that all of the continents were connected above sea level and that animals could move about the planet.
Percy writes:
Buzsaw writes:
2) If indeed the Biblical model is true, perhaps it would be impossible to know the element and chemical makeup of a pre-flood atmosphere relative to current dating methodology.
Things that actually happened and were real leave evidence behind, so I don't know why you say it would be impossible to know about things that you think the Bible claims happened in the past. But it would be impossible to find evidence for things that never actually happened.
It is believed by many creationists that if the flood were reality that the makeup of the atmosphere and topography of the planet would be substantially different than post flood. Thus it would seem that evidence as to the chemistry of the atmosphere would be unknown.
Percy writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Since the Biblical record has it that significant underground water was released via the effect of the extraordinary volumn of water fallen from the atmosphere to earth on earth's crust...etc...
More unsupported assertions, no evidence, and you're exhibiting the same pattern in other threads. In a recent post in another thread (Message 56) you said, "The science of all of this, of course, is beyond my knowledge." When this is the case it is good to follow this advice from Wittgenstein: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
If, according to the Biblical record, the subterrain water was released, the implication is that the weight of the flood waters ollapsed the thin crust over those subterrain waters so as to deepen those areas of subterrain water. This may have been a factor in some uplifting and deep seas.
Percy writes:
But your lack of knowledge in this area is easily remedied: read a good geology book. I believe this is the same advice consistently given to you all along.
The complaint constantly leveled at you was that you kept up a continual stream of proposals that not only had no supporting evidence, but contradicted known facts and even violated the laws of physics. You then compounded this by not addressing the evidence presented to you across hundreds of messages, by not presenting any relevant evidence of your own, and all the while maintaining that ideas in violation of known scientific laws could somehow be acceptable as good science.
So stop bemoaning your ignorance by saying things like "don't know enough" and do something about it. That way you won't keep advancing "roll-your-eyes" kinds of ideas.
What I said then is just as true today. The same factors that caused you to decide to cease participation here some months ago are still fully in play, and I don't understand why you're back.
Percy, with all due respect, why this personal attack? You are attacking me for reluctance to buy the mainline science view. I have tried to operate within the perameters of my knowledge in the threads. So far, since reactivating my account, for the most part my input has been as relevant as the average member. Most of what I have said has been within the Forum Guidelines equally as much as the average member.
I have admitted in the above message that that message was musings relative to the flood in response to my reading of the entire thread.
Unless you cite specific examples as evidence that I have been consistently posting contrary to guidelines, aren't your claims unsupported assertions?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 01-29-2010 7:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 02-02-2010 9:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2010 9:32 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2010 2:53 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 80 of 86 (545213)
02-02-2010 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Musings On The Thread
Buzsaw writes:
Hi Percy. It has been my understanding that during the Ice Age the oceans were shallow enough that all of the continents were connected above sea level and that animals could move about the planet.
Which one? There were several you know. If you mean the last one then you're wrong. While the oceans were lower, they certainly weren't shallow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 8:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 81 of 86 (545218)
02-02-2010 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Musings On The Thread
quote:
It is believed by many creationists that if the flood were reality that the makeup of the atmosphere and topography of the planet would be substantially different than post flood. Thus it would seem that evidence as to the chemistry of the atmosphere would be unknown.
Buz, just think about what you are saying. You think that some creationists believe that the pre-flood atmosphere had a different composition. And from that you jump - somehow - to the conclusion that we can't know anything about the atmosphere before then.
It should be pretty obvious that speculations about speculations do not dictate what evidence is or is not available. What you need to do is to look up what the creationists actually say. Then look up the relevant evidence. Then use both together to make a scientific case. Or at the least provide a decent argument from what creationists actually do say instead of jumping to a conclusion which doesn't even follow from your vague idea of what you think they say.
In fact I think you will find that the usual creationist argument concerning the atmosphere is that pressure from the "vapour canopy" increased the pressure and the actual composition is much the same as it is in our time (as we would expect, given that the Bible offers no hint that pre-Flood life was significantly different from modern life - something that would make little sense in, say, a hydrogen-fluorine atmosphere).
And if anyone is feeling a hint of deja vu here, it's because you tried to attack radiometric dating with very similar argument. And it turned out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. All you could do was insist that the science that you hadn't bothered to investigate had to agree with you - when in fact the relevant science indicated that you were talking complete nonsense. And that was not qualified as "musings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 8:55 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 4:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 82 of 86 (545241)
02-02-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 8:55 AM


Re: Musings On The Thread
Percy, with all due respect, why this personal attack? You are attacking me for reluctance to buy the mainline science view.
I think the problem is that you know little about science and bring forth the most amazing "what ifs" in an effort to support your religious beliefs.
Those "what ifs" are both laughable and somewhat offensive to those of us who know the relevant science--and there are a number of experts in various fields here.
We have, in many cases, spent perhaps 40 years studying a particular field and to have someone come along and trash that effort, and all those hours of study, with what often appears to us to be deliberate ignorance is sometimes beyond patience.
You say, "You are attacking me for reluctance to buy the mainline science view." But it is more than that. You are attacking the "mainline view" based on religious belief, not on whether the evidence supports that mainline view or not.
I think the bottom line here is that if you present scientific evidence you'll be received a lot more kindly. You should try it and see.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 8:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 86 (545250)
02-02-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
02-02-2010 9:32 AM


Re: Musings On The Thread
PaulK writes:
In fact I think you will find that the usual creationist argument concerning the atmosphere is that pressure from the "vapour canopy" increased the pressure and the actual composition is much the same as it is in our time (as we would expect, given that the Bible offers no hint that pre-Flood life was significantly different from modern life - something that would make little sense in, say, a hydrogen-fluorine atmosphere).
And if anyone is feeling a hint of deja vu here, it's because you tried to attack radiometric dating with very similar argument. And it turned out that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. All you could do was insist that the science that you hadn't bothered to investigate had to agree with you - when in fact the relevant science indicated that you were talking complete nonsense. And that was not qualified as "musings".
Hi Paul.
1) I don't understand how anyone can conclude that life was uniform pre-flood to what is post flood as per the Biblical record. Surely you are aware that as per the Biblical record, men lived as long as 9+ centuries and that after the flood that life quickly digressed from 6 to 9 hundred years down to 300, then 200 and by the time of Moses, down to under 200 and that larger animals such as mamoths and dinos lived on the earth? If that be the case, then there had to be factors which would affect dating methology.
2) The unique Buz hypothesis is in some respects, more compatible with the mainline science view than that of most fundi creationists.
3) Science could only speculate on the properties of a pre-Biblical flood atmosphere and chemical makeup of earth's surface, etc, since the data would not be uniform to the the view which science has studied.
All I intended by my original message here was a musing on some aspects of the thread, since what was discussed in the thread applied to some of what I said. I do not intend to further irritate Admin and you folks by continuing on this in this thread.
Thanks to those of you who responded. I hope you will understand why I will not be commenting further.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2010 9:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 02-02-2010 4:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2010 4:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 86 by Admin, posted 02-02-2010 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 84 of 86 (545251)
02-02-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Musings On The Thread
1) I don't understand how anyone can conclude that life was uniform pre-flood to what is post flood as per the Biblical record. Surely you are aware that as per the Biblical record, men lived as long as 9+ centuries and that after the flood that life quickly digressed from 6 to 9 hundred years down to 300, then 200 and by the time of Moses, down to under 200 and that larger animals such as mamoths and dinos lived on the earth? If that be the case, then there had to be factors which would affect dating methology.
You need to actually demonstrate that there was a flood, when it was, and what it's extent was before we can talk about the distribution of species before and after.
Then you need to supply evidence as to the lifespans of life during these time periods.
Then you need to show exactly how these factors can influence the nuclear decay of atoms.
3) Science could only speculate on the properties of a pre-Biblical flood atmosphere and chemical makeup of earth's surface, etc, since the data would not be uniform to the the view which science has studied.
Science knows the atmospheric content for the last 450,000 years. It is preserved in ice cores from multiple spots around the globe. Even further back inferences can be made from the types of minerals that formed on the surface. For example, the evidence for the absence of oxygen in an early earth is iron pyrite that formed at the surface. Oxygen prevents this mineral from forming. The appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere is evidenced by iron banding in Pre-cambrian strata. This evidences iron precipitation due to oxygenation.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 4:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 85 of 86 (545255)
02-02-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Musings On The Thread
quote:
1) I don't understand how anyone can conclude that life was uniform pre-flood to what is post flood as per the Biblical record. Surely you are aware that as per the Biblical record, men lived as long as 9+ centuries and that after the flood that life quickly digressed from 6 to 9 hundred years down to 300, then 200 and by the time of Moses, down to under 200 and that larger animals such as mamoths and dinos lived on the earth? If that be the case, then there had to be factors which would affect dating methology.
It's really, really simple. The fact is that aside from the dubious claims of long lifespans (which tell us nothing about the atmosphere even if true, and continue into post-Flood times anyway) there is NO difference. We have ravens and doves and whales. We have trees and grain. We have rivers and mists. In short there is absolutely nothing to suggest any significant difference in the atmosphere.
quote:
2) The unique Buz hypothesis is in some respects, more compatible with the mainline science view than that of most fundi creationists.
Even if that were true, it is hardly relevant because we are talking about what those "fundi creationists" say". Or rather your vague- and likely incorrect - idea of what they say (amazingly you can't even be bothered to find THAT out)
quote:
3) Science could only speculate on the properties of a pre-Biblical flood atmosphere and chemical makeup of earth's surface, etc, since the data would not be uniform to the the view which science has studied.
How exactly does that work ? Is the air trapped in the icecaps going to magically change in composition so that it looks like the current atmosphere ? A different atmosphere wouldn't change the laws of chemistry so we can look at the rocks - and less directly we can look at fossils - and see what they tell us. (We can tell, for instance that carbonate shells were viable - which limits how acidic the seas could be and that tells us about the atmosphere). Even in the most extreme YEC scenarios many fossils are of pre-flood life.
Let us be clear. You DON'T know what creationists propose. You DON'T know if the proposed atmospheres would leave evidence or not. That sort of musing doesn't seem like something that is really worth posting here. If you followed it up and found a serious proposal that would be both undetectable and make some sort of relevant difference to the pre-Flood world then that might be worth discussing. But a wild guess about the significance of ideas you can't even be bothered to look up ? What's the point of that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 4:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 86 (545290)
02-02-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
02-02-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Musings On The Thread
Hi Buzsaw,
I would love nothing more than helping you understand how to discuss science, but your long history here is that no one can explain anything to you.
So given this I'm left with few alternatives, so I'll handle it this way. This thread is in one of the science forums. If you post any more assertions unaccompanied by supporting scientific evidence then I will remove your posting permissions in this forum.
Buz, please, when you don't know anything about a subject, don't say anything about it.
Please, no replies to this message in this thread. Anyone who feels they are experiencing problems in a discussion thread should post to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 02-02-2010 4:22 PM Buzsaw 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