Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 151 of 303 (242888)
09-13-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:39 AM


Re: No Catch 22
I take it as Faith insisting that you understand she takes the Bible as literally true. I don't see that she's demanding to have your agreement to that--just that you don't question it in the thread. I think she's demanding that you know her starting point, and allow her to work under it.
I could be wrong. That's been my take.
And it's a correct take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 AM Ben! has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 303 (242897)
09-13-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
09-13-2005 9:53 AM


Re: No Catch 22
The idea that certan debates should have preconditions of the sort you suggest is not unreasonable - if it is stated upfront - but it can't be what Faith means. For a start Faith doesn't restrict herself to threads with such conditions. And if it isn't stated upfron hten Faith has no right to impose it on others.
I have only recently realized that it has to be stated clearly that the EvC emphasis on scientific thinking, which no YEC wants to deny, nevertheless contains a restriction on YECs that makes debate unfair and fair debate impossible. The term "science" clouds the problem in a way, but the problem is that EvC's presuppositions a priori exclude YEC presuppositions, which certainly makes real debate impossible. Yes, YECs do come in here and try to play under these rules but soon find themselves warned and upbraided and finally suspended for simply having the premises that make us YECs and for doing what we came to do. EvC has every right to run debates on whatever principles they like, but in that case YECs need to be warned clearly that this means that their very reason for being YECs is eliminated up front. Do you think you could debate under such restrictions on YOUR presuppositions?
So it can't be what Faith means in her claim that the deck is stacked against her. Her comments only make sense if she means that she wants her belief that "God said X" to be accepted as a valid arguemnt for X.
No, not an argument, a premise, a presupposition, a given, my starting point. It's what the whole debate is about and you can't rule it out as invalid just because it's from the Bible, or the debate idea is completely ludicrous. That doesn't mean you have to believe it, but you can't just declare a YEC out of bounds for assuming it, which goes on all the time here. That's what I mean by making debate a sham. The idea of science that is promoted here insists that the Bible must be subject to science and treated as falsifiable, but that is absolutely out of the question for a YEC. If you want to continue on that premise that it is falsifiable, then YECs cannot participate in the debate.
And - given her refusal to discuss the Bible it is an argument which she wants placed beyond question.
Not really, as I know that can't be done by most here. I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.
Unless you can come up with a solution. I don't think there is one.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 10:51 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 303 (242908)
09-13-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Now THAT post is what I call nasty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 303 (242913)
09-13-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
The idea that fundamentalists are taking the Bible literally, while liberals are interpreting it, is just nonsense. Fundamentalists are up to their necks in interpretation.
At some point this is a problem with terminological confusion. I did NOT say that fundamentalists DON'T INTERPRET. I've even said the opposite, you can't NOT interpret. The point is whether the Bible text is violated in the interpretation, and that's what liberal theologians do. For instance, there is NO basis for an allegorical reading of Genesis IN THE TEXT. That has to be imposed on the test from extraneous assumptions.
And there is no nasty anything in saying that if you know the Bible and are willing for it to be falsified you are putting science above God's own word. It's simple fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 157 of 303 (242918)
09-13-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
Did Noah take two (or more) lions, tigers, sabre toothed tigers, two african elephants, two indian elephants, two mastodons, two kangaroos, two koalas (to name just a few)? Ken Ham says No. Like it or not, that is an interpretation of the biblical text. You cannot dismiss it as "but a scientific hypothesis".
No it is not an interpretation of the text, it's an idea about what a Kind probably includes, since the text does not specify. That is not an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis. I am not very familiar with Ken Ham but what he is saying sounds like standard creationism which is easily intuited by a Bible believer -- that all the varieties we have came from one original pair of the Kind. I don't know for sure what all the different categories consist in but creationists do seem to agree that there is only one elephant Kind, from which our modern types as well as the mastodons descended, the mastodon being a variation that became extinct in the Flood; there is only one cat Kind which includes all cats, great and small, the sabre-toothed tiger variation having become extinct in the Flood and the cheetah being a type that got severely bottlenecked; there is only one bear Kind, and the koala and the panda are types that got bottlenecked somewhere; I don't know the best thinking about the kangaroo but I would suppose it is a variation on a Kind of which most other types are extinct. Etc.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:59 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 11:05 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 1:44 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 303 (242922)
09-13-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:59 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen
It is nasty when you make allegations regarding the intentions of scientists based on your interpretation of the Bible. An assessment of a scientist's intentions must be based on that scientist's own interpretation.
Yes it is true that I do not bind myself by political correctness or theological liberal correctness either, but if God did author the Bible, so that it is to be believed as written, which was held by most Europeans until quite recently, it is simple fact and not nasty at all to say that affirming anything that denies His word is a denial of God.
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 163 of 303 (242935)
09-13-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PaulK
09-13-2005 10:51 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Thanks for confirming that my impression was correct.
I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.
Well you aren't going to get that acknowledgement because it isn't true.
I should have been more precise -- or you should have known what I meant by now. It makes genuine debate about the YEC views of science impossible, not all debate. Yes you can still debate the Bible's validity itself.
For a start you wouldn't be saying that if the scientific evidence actually supported your interpretation of the Bible. If you need to appeal to the Bible over the scientific evidence it's because they show different things.
That is correct. That is why there is a debate at all. However I don't believe it's about evidence as much as that the evidence is simply interpreted within the evolutionistic and OE suppositions that deny the Bible. In any case my presupposition is that the Bible is God's word, that it is to be read as written, including Genesis, and that therefore the Flood did happen, and if these assumptions are excluded from debate about these very questions, this is as good as denying YECs the right to hold them, and that's stacking the deck, and that makes debate impossible. And I mean REALLY impossible, not just difficult. All the complaints against YEC methods here are fundamentally about our believing these things.
You could also legitimately debate which side the physical evidence supported. YOU don't have to accept it as more authoritative than your beliefs, even if others do. But equally you would not be free to introduce your theological views as an argument into such a thread - because they are not relevant.
I have participated to some extent in those debates and yes those things can be debated if a YEC wants to engage in it, but I consider questions about physical evidence irrelevant myself.
Or you could take part in theological debates on the nature and purpose of the Bible (there ARE views - even within Christianity - other than yours).
I've participated in a few of those also, but in the end I don't see the point. I know what I believe and why I believe it and it's not for lack of exposure to other views, and I hate to see the way the Bible gets picked apart by people who don't believe it as written.
No, legitimate debate is possible BECAUSE you can't insist that your views are accepted automatically.
But that means that YECs cannot and should not participate here because what IS accepted automatically is the assumptions of our opponents -- that our beliefs are subject to science -- and that is stacking the deck. In fact your beliefs should be subject to God's word, but if that premise is disallowed so must yours be, all of which makes debate a completely nonsensical notion. I refuse to submit to the assumptions of EvC, that science trumps all else, and that God Himself must yield to this idol god Science, and that's all this really comes down to, and I think all YECs should refuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 10:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 12:20 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 303 (242938)
09-13-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by nwr
09-13-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Obviously we are miscommunicating and should end this conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 303 (242940)
09-13-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen
Huh? Excuse me but I don't get your point. Obviously gravity can be tested and has been tested.
We know that gravity will be the same tomorrow because we know the universe operates by laws and not whim. And this is because most of Western empirical science started from the Bible's recognition of a law-bound Nature made by a rational orderly God. We may not know exactly WHAT gravity is but as long as we can measure it and predict it we have a testable science. We'd never have had a science of any great value without the revelation of the God who runs things by Law. Without that faith in the lawful orderly behavior of the physical world everything would be in doubt.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 11:48 AM
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:12 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 09-13-2005 12:01 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 167 of 303 (242947)
09-13-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:00 AM


Re: I don't buy it
But I do feel the same way The Literalist feels -- give me a few billion to take on the evolution paradigm and I'll work hard at it. I'll comb the Christian schools and churches for the smartest most science-oriented geek type kids who are also genuine literalist Bible believers, and I'll find the best science teachers to groom them and we'll set up labs and field work and a reading load that should rival any scientific establishment in the world. THEN we'll start to see some progress in this debate.
I just wanted to point out that this has basically already happened historically. Catastrophism was the name of the game at one time. We had people gathering data and making observations based on that paradigm. We can imagine them running around looking at the geology around them, thinking "Wow, that flood was awesome. The bible says it happened; now let’s find the evidence for it." They assumed that the flood happened, much like you do. Some went around thinking; wouldn't this be great to glorify God, by understanding his creation. They then went around gathering evidence and debating how the world could appear the way it appeared to them. They proposed hypotheses, and scratched their heads. They came across problems with their previous view of the world. Issues in their observations and data came up, which made supporting a strictly catastrophist viewpoint untenable.
Yeah, like unconformities and the fossil sequence. Neither of those things should have had the power they had to unseat the Bible. There are other interpretations possible. And this is not a matter of evidence, this is purely a matter of interpretation.
The geology of the world just didn’t want to support their notions of what happened. They were able to use their brains to tease out theories and use their eyes to observe how things were being formed then. They could see beaches at work, sandbars change, rivers erode. While they couldn’t see mountains forming, there were active volcanoes they could study. They noticed patterns, similarities between rocks in differing locations, and clues in rocks that point to processes at work today. Fossils were a big hit. They began to question the idea that the earth was static and unchanging, an idea they got from the bible.
Interestingly those very same clues are used very profitably by creationists. There is nothing in them that demands the OE interpretation. Also, there is nothing in the Bible that says the world is static and unchanging. They simply hadn't worked out the implications of the Fall and the Flood which imply massive and violent changes in the physical universe. Creationists are starting to do this now. The earlier Christians abandoned the Bible in favor of their fallen scientific imaginations when they should have gone back to the Bible to rethink their naive misreading of it.
Because they could not observe how everything formed they had to propose theories to ask how some things might have happened. Certain rocks types cannot be observed to be in the process of forming. They may no longer be forming, forming somewhere we can not observe, or they are in the process of forming but this is taking so long it can not be discerned. We only have a limited lifespan after all. They came to hold a more rational viewpoint on the processes that mold and create the land we see.
No, they came to hold a particular interpretation, but there are other interpretations possible and creationists have found some and continue to look for them.
They began to realize, the processes we see today must have been the processes that happened yesterday, and will be the processes we will see tomorrow.
I believe this is axiomatic based on the Biblical revelation of a lawful universe made by a Law giving God, that it came out of Christian Biblical presuppositions. Whitehead attributed the scientific method to the thinking of medieval monks who were steeped in Christian assumptions.
But just because the processes of the universe are predictable does not mean that there weren't EVENTS that changed things. And this is a problem creationists have with the uniformitarianist supposition.
They continued to work together to uncover more knowledge and strengthen or throw away old ideas. All throughout this process they tested their hypotheses and theories, or someone tested it for them.
This needs to be pinned down to particulars sometime because OE and the ToE rest not on testable hypotheses but on interpretations and imaginative scenarios and plausibilities alone. The preponderance of the evidence itself does not incline toward those interpretations.
All of this present science we have today has been built upon the observations, data, tests and retests and theories of a multitude of people working to expand our knowledge of the world we live in, throughout time. Science works because it isn’t exclusionary. Anyone can do it if they have the inclination. All it requires is hard work, basic intelligence, a common methodology, and honesty. It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.
Kinda sounds like what Freud called the Family Romance, science style, but I won't go there. I don't think it is honest of scientists to label anything with the interpretative baggage of evolutionism. Instead of calling something an x-millions of years old descendant of such and such, it should be called by its actual physical characteristics. THAT would be honest.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 12:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:00 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 303 (243030)
09-13-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
09-13-2005 12:20 PM


Re: No Catch 22
THat's complete rubbish. Your presuppositions are not excluded from the debate - they are part of what is being debated. That is why they cannot be used as arguments IN the debate.
If my presuppositions are being debated, then the scientific presupposition ought also to be debated, the very idea that everything is subjectable to science, the very idea that the Bible is subjectable to science. If in the middle of a debate about some scientific question a YEC can be suspended for mentioning that the Flood is a given that he will not dispute, then a scientist ought to be suspended for insisting that science trumps the Bible. If YEC presuppositions are up for debate in every debate, but the scientific presupposition is not up for debate, debate is not possible for YECs, and obviously debate is impossible anyway as there is nothing left to debate but whether the Bible is to be subject to science or science subject to the Biblical God.
You are not being denied the right to hold your views - your demands are tantamount to denying your opponents the right to hold their views.
That is correct. That is the nature of the problem here. Your views preclude mine, mine preclude yours. Except that yours rule at EvC which means YECs are unfairly handicapped in the very terms of the debate.
Te deck is not stacked against you - you are demanding that the deck should be stacked in your favour. Debate is not impossible - but it would be if your demands were accepted.
You are failing to see how the deck is now stacked in YOUR favor as it is your demands which preclude mine from having a say anywhere but the Faith and Belief forums -- {Edit: and even there many scream if a scientific question is raised there. Even the new Theological Creationism forum, which was created for this very reason, is screamed about. We may not even MENTION YEC views on this site because they aren't scientific according to these objectors.}
As I've said there is NO demand that science trumps all else - the science forums are limited to scientific arguments but - even there - you are not required to personally beleive a conclusion simply because it is scientific.
This is not about personal beliefs. This is about how debate is conducted.
As I said the science forums are for arguing which view the empirical evidence supports.
Yes, that is the view that stacks the deck against YECs. To you it seems so obvious as to be absurd to question it, but the rule of subjecting God's word to the test of empirical evidence is to weight the debate against YECs. And yes, for me to insist that the Flood is a given weights the debate against science -- on the particular issues of the Flood only however. I'm insisting on it because I'm tired of YECs being suspended for holding it and being forced to bow down to this idol. Science seems neutral to you. But it's not. It has become this huge idol that is given authority over God that you are making us all bow down to here in order for the debate even to happen.
Essentially your precondition for a "real" debate is that your opponents should agree to surrender without a fight. Can't you understand that omitting such a condition is hardly stacking the deck against you ?
I "understood" that at first, until it began to be clear that that's an illusion after incident upon incident of YECs being suspended for not thinking scientifically. So my position now is that the debate at EvC is utterly impossible in the nature of things because of the absolutely unresolvable conflicting presuppositions we hold.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 04:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 5:37 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 303 (243047)
09-13-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jazzns
09-13-2005 1:44 PM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
Here we go again. Failing on the facts. By the way did you read my last post? Re: YECism can't get past the facts (Message 131)
Big difference between a koala and a panda. Koala is a marsupial, panda is a placental.
OK, the term "bear" is then misapplied to the koala and I wondered about that when I wrote it. But it doesn't really matter. The point is only that the original Kinds possessed a great range of genetic possibilities for variation. It is even POSSIBLE that both marsupial and placental variations are genetically possible within a Kind, but until we get those many millions to set up labs for creationists to study genetics we'll never get to find out -- we can be sure evolutionists will never find out since they are bound to their paradigm and won't consider ours.
Don't worry though. This is a common creationist mistake. Simple innocent ignorance. Kind of like how most creationists will put the tasmanian wolf and an artic wolf in the same kind. Gotta love the awesome power of kinds!
There are some animals that are hard to classify. Convergent evolution may be the evolutionist interpretation of what creationists would explain as the great variety of genetic possibilities built into the Kind. If marsupials are a Kind then the Tasmanian wolf would be a variation on that Kind.
And I don't know about "awesome power" but awesome built-in genetic variability of the Kind, yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 1:44 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 5:05 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 303 (243056)
09-13-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 6:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Yes I dispute that as I learned quite a bit of it on my own googles.
======
Which I am not talking about.
If I googled it then I didn't learn it from EvC. It would be nice if EvC could be a source of such knowledge and to some extent it is, but practically speaking it doesn't work out that way and I'm not completely sure why not.
I have always disputed the interpretation of everything on your list
=========
I am not talking about interpretation.
Oh yes you are. The big problem for YECs is that evolutionists think they are talking about facts when they're only talking about their own evolutionist assumptions laid on the facts.
but I do not dispute the facts themselves.
=========
Yes you have. The first thing you did when you got where was disputed the facts about mutations. In fact you dispute them in your very next sentence!
No, in my very next sentence I dispute how they are classified or interpreted, not the facts themselves, which are that something happens that is called a mutation. Getting to the raw data, however, to subject it to a creationist viewpoint, would require those millions of funding for the labs to do it in.
I question that everything that is called a mutation is a genuine mutation and that awaits further study.
======
That these occur is not up for debate!
Not that they occur but what they actually are IS.
I dispute the interpretation of buried landscapes as long-lived phenomena, seeing them as very short-lived stages in the Flood in its gradual recession from the land which certainly involved temporary rivers and lakes.
=========
So what. I wasn't talking about depositional environments. That wasn't in my list.
Sigh. Well, I'm not going to look for it now in the middle of answering this post, but what WAS it if it wasn't depositional environments you were talking about?
I do not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures but I do dispute that it's faster than the erosion of the folded Appalachians which exposed more erodable surface to erosion according to the diagram deerbreh posted.
=============
Even within the same sentence you have demonstrated that you do not understand the facts. You said you did not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures yet you still claim that the Appalachians are eroding fast. You are blatantly denying the fact. There is no arguing. The Appalachians are eroding slower than the Rockies based on their elevation and their profile. The more you get eroded the less you erode. FACT.
No, I claim that the Appalachians HAVE eroded fast, not that they ARE eroding fast. Past tense. NOW they are eroding slower because of the less erodable surface at this point. Now less fast-eroding surface is exposed because those highly erodable portions have eroded away, leaving the less erodable, and according to my YEC conjecture, the earlier erosion would have carved them down in the last few thousand years to their current condition. So, to summarize, the initially faster erosion has brought them to a point where they are now less erodable. Has to do with the erodability of the exposed sediments, not just elevation and profile.
This site deerbreh posted also gives the OE interpretation that the Appalachians were formed by the collision of the continents, implying many driftings to and fro I guess (?), but the creationist explanation that occurs to me is that they formed in the initial breaking apart of the continents, no collision, and this would be because of the pushing-apart force at the continental ridge that separated them. Error 404 - Page Not Found
And you do get credit for informing me about strain in hard fossils and rock structures, but I'm still not convinced that this describes the formation of the Appalachians, though it doesn't matter if it does -- as you never gave any direct evidence of strain in their structure at all.
========
Oh yes I did!!! You just must not have read it. Re: Humble chutzpah maybe? (Message 150 of Thread Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? in Forum Education and Creation/Evolution)
If there's anything to address there, I will have to address it in a separate post. As I've said, it isn't particularly important to my views whether bending occurred before or after lithification.
As a matter of fact I have to reserve the entire rest of your post because I don't understand what you are referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 5:44 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 303 (243062)
09-13-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Chiroptera
09-13-2005 5:05 PM


Re: What's holding them up?
Far as I can tell on a quick read-through they don't have the money but expect to get it through donations.
How much does it cost to set up a high-class genetics lab?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 5:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Chiroptera, posted 09-14-2005 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 303 (243082)
09-13-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 6:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
To continue answering your post.
You misspoke in that post, saying first the opposite of what you meant, that bending occurs BEFORE lithification, which was confusing but I think I've figured it out.
http://EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest? -->EvC Forum: Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
You haven't shown the stress marks caused by the buckling in the Appalachians that you say are there when rock is bent or otherwise stretched, only in other places, you are merely asserting that such folding occurred in hard rock. Why not show the stress marks as you did in the other examples?
Well that is why I was telling you that the rule is bent rocks are bent before lithification. If you need specific references for strain in the Appalachians then here is a few that I was able to dig up.
So I concede the point about strain after lithification. It doesn't matter. HOWEVER, the site you linked says nothing about that, merely documents the signs of strain in the Appalachians, so I'm taking your word for it that these are post-lithification indicators. Also if the Figures are supposed to be visible, they aren't on my computer. Also, there is too much higher math there to be of use to me beyond the fact that it says that there are these indicators of strain in the Appalachians.
Should be enough to convince you I hope. When rocks deform they always do so lithified. Once again, fact. ...It is the rare occurrence that deformation happens to unlithified sediment. So rare that I try as I might I cannot even find an example on the internet of it happening. Maybe rox or someone can help with a good example of what it looks like when unlithified rock is put under tectonic stress. I can tell you one thing, it is not going to look like you neat syncline/anticlines of your Appalachian example.
Fine.
Did YOU look at the whole page? Do you understand what a syncline is and how they form? If you don't then please ask because it seeming more and more like you really have no idea how to interpret geologic information. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about syncline formation. What is nice about that is their method of formation is entirely factual so once again we will be talking about facts rather than theory. No room to argue.
I read the page. I am not interested in more detailed information at this point.
It is also a fact that the Appalachians HAVE BEEN eroded enormously from their original folded configuration, to judge by the link I gave, where it appears you only glanced at the road cut illustration and didn't see the diagrams of how the area was eroded.
==========
I saw it just fine. I just don't know what the big deal is. That still doesn't address why the Appalacians "beat" the Rockies in terms of erosion given that the Rockies today are eroding faster than the Appalacians.
I think I've said why quite clearly in my previous post -- and many times before that. The more erodable surfaces have BEEN eroded, past tense, as shown on the diagrams, and now the less erodable surfaces are exposed. That plus the factors of lower profile etc explain the slower erosion of the Appalachians NOW.
if the Appalacians started out with more erosional potential than the Rockies then why did it continue as it has rather than slow down once it was eroded enough to reach the same potential as the Rockies.
Not following you. Seems to me they NOW lack the exposure that the Rockies have, and the more highly erodable surfaces have already been eroded. Why isn't this a sufficient possible explanation?
You have a race condition here that is impossible. Even if it rained 24/7 on teh Appalachians and there was no wind or rain at all on the Rockies you would still be hard pressed to erode millions of tons of granite and other types of rock over a couple thousand years since their formation.
I have the impression from the diagrams at the link that the erodable rocks have BEEN eroded down to the syncline configuration, and these highly erodable rocks aren't granite. The erosion slows where granite and other less erodable rocks are the most exposed surface.
One thing is for sure. You are better off proposing some kind of other outrageous, mid/post flood craziness for why those two ranges look the way they do in comparision because the alternative that the Appalachians simply eroded faster post flood is a no go.
You haven't convinced me of that. In fact you haven't even addressed what I've actually said.
Lets remember your initial ignorance of the facts with regards to erosion and deformation:
Faith previously writes:
Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.
Emphasis by me.
And your point is? You don't give the context of this quote and in dealing with four or five posters I'm not inclined to look such things up, but IIRC you challenged me to explain where the sediments that formed the strata CAME FROM. I came up with an explanation and I have no clue to what your objection to it is from what you have said here.
I am still digging in the archives for that first mutation thread you were in.
It had something like "natural limits" in the title, if it's the one I'm thinking of, and you should be able to find it easily by going to the list of posts under my name back to March or thereabouts.
You are not the first and will not be the last. The primary deficit with nearly all of your arguments the moment you try you hand at empiricism is a basic lack of knowledge of the facts. This is not just a you thing. This is a YEC thing. Every single time. Every single article on every single YEC propaganda site. Every single debate with a Hovind or a Gish. If it is not ignorance it is deception. You get a free pass here because the posters and the mods assume it is the former.
This is not a stab. We have discussed this before in my "Why Won't Creationists Learn" thread. You know you lack, yet you do nothing. SO none of this should be a suprise or offensive to you.
First, I have, I believe, shown that what you are calling facts are sometimes not facts but interpretations of the facts and yes YECs dispute most evolutionist interpretations. Second, most YECs who come here are not scientists. Third, while superficially one would expect that this would be a great place to learn some science, in fact there's something about the set-up that makes that extremely difficult, probably the hostility for starters. And fourth, I've learned a LOT about geology since I've been here, and I've spent HOURS researching various questions online. Just one particular, very specific, very limited, problem can take up hours of research -- the Coconino in the Grand Canyon for instance -- and since a YEC has to do the extra work of learning plus translating information from Evospeak into ordinary English it is a doubly daunting task. THEN, on top of that, the constant refrain that I'm unwilling to learn is so unfair that it rather erodes my enthusiasm for learning more.
All I am saying is that all this fuss over weather or not you should participate in IRH's thread is rediculous. I think your ban on the science forums should be lifted. I think you should be able to say whatever you want. You position is complete valid as a belief and especially since you have already stated that you DON'T want the school system changed or any other kind of political indoctrination. I am not here to change your mind. I have already decided that that is impossible. BY all means, show us what you got in IRH's thread.
We'll see if it is an approach I can relate to at all. I can't tell yet.
All this suspension and validity of reasoning is pure nonesense. It has no bearning on the legitimacy or impression of your debate.
Can't figure out what you are saying here, but maybe it's not important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 11:01 AM 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