Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 5:30 AM
16 online now:
(16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
CK
Member (Idle past 2326 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 181 of 303 (243015)
09-13-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:47 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Ben does the fact that, even at this advanced stage, that people don't actually understand what you are suggesting trouble you?

If we cannot understand it - how is it suppose to operate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:47 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 4:16 PM CK has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 182 of 303 (243019)
09-13-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by AdminBen
09-13-2005 3:39 PM


Re: Off Topic
Far me it from me to moderate the moderator but maybe you could be more explicit as to what you feel is off topic. I have tried with each of my posts to tie it back to my initial comment about YEC epiricism and how it is impossible due to this lack of grounding in the facts. I have used examples that, if taken and run with, could be considered off topic but the main point is there.

I tried to look back to see where if any things were getting off the topic of empiricism or Faith's presumtions. I really can't see where that has happened except maybe the minor diversion here or there. Maybe you could be more explicit in your moderating effort?

Thanks.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 3:39 PM AdminBen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 4:27 PM Jazzns has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1820 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 183 of 303 (243022)
09-13-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CK
09-13-2005 4:01 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Ben does the fact that, even at this advanced stage, that people don't actually understand what you are suggesting trouble you?

What are you, reading my mind?

If we cannot understand it - how is it suppose to operate?

I think PaulK understands the proposal, but he's arguing about whether or not Faith's intentions are within the scope of it.

It's a good point though. I'm hoping that if we can get something started up, those people who read the rules and still don't understand will get moderated out of that area. And hopefully by sitting on the sidelines and watching, the people who don't understand can start to understand, and participate if they like.

I'm not saying it'll work. I'm saying, I think it has the potential to do good, and I think it's possible it could work. We even have similar systems already in place here.

But yeah, it's a concern. It was a concern before even starting this thread. I'm still interested to move forward and try. I'd rather set something up and have everybody get kicked out or choose not to participate than see the same discussions start up and fail for the same reasons over, and over, and over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 4:01 PM CK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 184 of 303 (243023)
09-13-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:47 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Let me make it clear. I don't find any problem with the occasional thread which assuems YEC ideas about the Bible for the sake of argument or for YECs to sort out their ideas between themselves.

But that is certainly not what I think that is all that Faith is asking for. As I've pointed out her remarks make no sense unless she is asking for a general rule to tilt things in her favour.

Even if I should happen to be wrong, you need to recognise that my answers to Faith are based on my perception of what she is saying and not yours. If you assume otherwise then you are very seriously misrepresenting what I am saying. In exactly the way that you did.A


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:47 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 4:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1820 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 185 of 303 (243027)
09-13-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
09-13-2005 4:17 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I understand. I'm dropping it.

I want to focus on analyzing methods available to YECs and in providing ways to allow YEC discussion to proceed in a more fruitful manner.

Thanks for your comments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 4:17 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 303 (243033)
09-13-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Jazzns
09-13-2005 4:03 PM


Re: Off Topic
Jazzns,

Don't take the fact that my admin post appeared just after your post as an indication I was talking about you most specifically. I actually began writing before your post was even available.

If you're asking specifically what posts you wrote that were off topic, I would say check, Post 170.

nwr and Faith have been headed off topic in a coupld of different directions. Faith also failed to bring a comment back on-topic at post 140, and DBLevins responded to that.

The post you wrote just before I posted my comment was actually nicely tied to the subject. The posts you responded to, started by Modulous (I think), were the beginnings of an off-topic line of posting, but hopefully you found a way to bring it back.

Hope that helps clear things up.

AbE: If you had posted your comments in post 179 (179, is that right?) in post 170, you could have tied it into the thread directly. You didn't, so by itself it's just arguing the topic of "kinds".

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 01:30 PM


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 4:03 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 4:30 PM AdminBen has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 188 of 303 (243035)
09-13-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AdminBen
09-13-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Off Topic
Yes it did thanks. It was just a bit hard to tell which direction the moderation gun was pointing. :)


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 4:27 PM AdminBen has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

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

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6704
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 190 of 303 (243053)
09-13-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
09-13-2005 4:49 PM


What's holding them up?
Hello, Faith.

quote:
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.

I don't see the problem; creation ministries don't seem to have to much trouble raising this kind of money:

What will the complex cost?
$25 million. This includes $12 million for the building and land and $13 million for interior design and exhibits. The support will come from sacrificial donations from AiG supporters and also through “gifts in kind” (i.e. a gift of materials and/or services in lieu of a cash gift).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 5:36 PM Chiroptera has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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. http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/sideling.html

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 yet responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 193 of 303 (243063)
09-13-2005 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
09-13-2005 4:24 PM


Re: No Catch 22
The science is, of course, open to debate. On it's own terms. Just as your theology is - or should be - open to debate on theological terms.

quote:

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.

A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments. Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden your argument amounts to saying that if creationists can be suspended for breaking the rules then other people should be suspended even if they follow the rules.
If Ben's proposal comes off then you could get your wish - but only on that forum.

quote:

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.

Of course that isn't the case - it is, however, the mirror image of what you are asking for. You DON'T discuss your presuppositions - you discuss scientific matters and want to introduce your presupposiitosn to THOSE discussions.

quote:

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.

It may bw well be true that you want to deny your opponents the right to hold their views - but that does not entitle you to claim that the reverse is the case. And you have yet to show that the rules unfairly handicap you in the slightest.

quote:

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

That's not a handicap at all. Why shouldn't we have forums restrcted to science ? That way we can deal with the discussion of which side is supported by the scientific evidence without confsuing the issue with faith-based beliefs. From either side.

quote:

This is not about personal beliefs. This is about how debate is conducted.


And that is EXACTLY why your demands that your personal beleifs should be given special favourable treatment is NOT acceptable.

quote:

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.

In other words it is not the rules that are unfair at all. If the empirical evidence is against you then that is not the fault of the rules - and certainly not a valid reason for rigging the rules in your favour.

quote:

And yes, for me to insist that the Flood is a given weights the debate against science it seems so obvious as to be absurd to question it,

It would certainly be absurd for you to inssit that the scientific conclusions should be subject to it. The strength of science is that it is NOT dependant on narrow religious beliefs, but on a minimal and utiltiarian metaphysic which is accepted by very many peopel from numerous different religious traditions.

As I say you are not required to accept that the scientific conclusions are true - for the same reason that you cannot ask anyone to reject the scientific conclusions because they contradict your religious beliefs.

Now I cannot see any valid purpsoe for introducing faith-based arguments into the sciene forum. The science is of interest in itself and the restrictions on the science forums therefore serve a useful purpose. Especially as the rule does not unfairly restrict you.

Nor can I see any valid purpose in making a rule that your religious beliefs must be accepted as unquestioanble facts. If you want to argue the theology than the onus is on you to start threads on theology. You can even insist that theological considerations should overrule science for the purposes of such a thread.
B


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:05 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:19 PM PaulK has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31081
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 194 of 303 (243065)
09-13-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
09-13-2005 5:23 PM


Okay, let's explore.
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.

I've asked this of you before and just as with every other specific question you have simply never responded.

Perhaps this time it will be different.

Please explain the pulling apart mechanism that will produce what we see in the Appalachians.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 5:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 5:30 PM jar has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 195 of 303 (243080)
09-13-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 6:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
I'll answer both of your posts in one.

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.

Here we have another good example of why YECism cannot be empiric. It may be possible that both marsupial and placental variations are genetically possible from within a kind but IN NO WAY are both bird and raptor variations genetically possible from within a kind. Or for that matter homo and pan variations. We will dismiss one apriori with no facts and accept another, again with no facts.

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.

So now we have solved the great mystery of how Noah fit all those animals onto the ark. There was a mammal kind, a reptile kind, a bird kind, etc. And after only a thousand or so years they all microevolved into the various species we have today. Except humans. It is both restrictive and endless how far YECism draws the lines apriori on species classification. Again with no facts.

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.

No I am not talking about interpretation. Again I am talking about non-debatable, tangible, verifiable, observable data that YECs constantly ignore, misrepresent, are ignorant of, or lie about.

Not that they occur but what they actually are IS.

What they ARE is not up for debate. They ARE insertions, deletions, point mutations, etc that DO happen randomly that may or may not change the coding sequence of the DNA. This is non-negotiable.

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 had a finite list of things for which I was certain you had been wrong about the facts in the past. I recanted on the horizontality one when I couldn't find the original reference. No where in my finite list of facts did I mention depositional environments because they are an interprative tool.

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.

Yet earlier, with regards to why the Rockies are less eroded than the Appalachians you said:

The Rockies were thrust up at steep angles, their highly compressed strata remaining parallel and intact. The Appalachians were buckled and folded, which exposed more surfaces to erosion.

That you cannot see why those two statements contradict each other is even more telling then the fact that you struck out with the original statement. Not to mention that you didn't understand what it meant when Nuggin brought the rock type into the discussion, not to mention your dismissal when I called you on it. Once again, a clear demonstration of a lack of grounding in the facts.

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. http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/sideling.html

The more you post, the more you get the facts wrong. Or maybe you can start a thread to tell us all how divergent action can cause compressional structures. You keep returning to that link as if it actually means something about what you just said.

You don't know how to distinguish the facts from the theory. Nor do AIG, IRC, etc. Nor do Hovind, Gish, etc. And it is all demonstrable. That is why I think there is no harm in you being allowed back into the science fora with your presumption of the flood and the presuption of creation. As much as I think your arguments are rediculous my whole motive for joining this thread was to defend your right to have your forum privs restored. This is because in my opinion there is no theory based on your presumptions that would ever even get off the ground.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019