|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC Problem with Science Above and Beyond Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They use old earth calculations in their work, it is true, but these calculations are very small part of how they go about their work, and therefore don't mess it up too much. Mostly what is of importance is simply the underground configurations, the contents of the rocks, and the ancient age terminology is mostly windowdressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How can you say that right after I showed you that YEC is a big problem for Hydrogeology, which has an immediate ramification in practical science. The same equations used to date water in confined aquifers (which in many cases show dates up to millions of years) are used to determine how long it will take for the aquifer to be recharged. This is vitally important for water management, which farmers use to grow our food in the Western US among other things. Those equations are based on assuming that the water in the aquifers has always been maintained by the same processes, no? The age of the aquifer water is assumed and unimportant is how I read this. You are talking about replenishing an existing system, the age of which you really do not know. The calculations no doubt are fine for predictions since they are about how long it takes to resaturate the existing system given the current conditions that feed the aquifers, and the old earth assumption is irrelevant. That is, it's going to take the same amount of time to resaturate it depending on rainfall and saturation rates, whether it actually took that amount of time in the first place or was already saturated 4500 years ago. Look, I'm sure I have various factors out of whack in my thinking about these things. Precision ought not to be the point though. I'm trying to deal with the overall picture that's being presented with general concepts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Additionally, this is fresh water, not salty Great Flood water we are discussing here. Again, there is no reason whatever to think the original ocean was salty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They don't *know* what temperatures were in the past except by evo theory and their formulas are based on that. If pressures were greater in a big catastrophe, perhaps the adjustments would not matter a whole lot as far as outcomes go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't argue from the idea of appearance of age. When it comes to anything on planet earth I don't see any appearance of great age at all -- it all appears to be about 6000 years old. Great age is nothing but a mental construct, all just based on the evo fantasy. I certainly see an appearance of great age in the stars, but that's why I leave astronomy out of this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Didn't you see my original comment on this? How did it get lost so soon? It's not that far back. The salt is leached from the continents. The salt water bodies on land are created by the same means, salt from the ground.
Oh, it was Message 138 Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
anglagard writes: If the great flood deposited all sedimentary rocks at once there would be one layer of one type of sedimentary rock.
Faith writes: Which is why no YEC has ever said such a thing. Arachnid writes: funny, your registration date indicates that you've been here longer than me. and i clearly recall several yec making such claims here. MY ADDED BOLDING. 1) I registered a long time ago and then did not return for a number of years. I've only been posting regularly since the Spring of 2005. 2) I don't read a lot of the creationist threads here because they have too much specific science as well as some oddball things I can't follow. 3) I did read creationist books, such as those by Henry Morris however, so I will comment on that as follows:
Arachnid writes: for instance, here's henry morris:
quote: There is nothing in this quote to imply one type of sedimentary rock, but he's obviously talking about the EXISTING GEOLOGICAL COLUMN THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE, that is, the "global continuity of sedimentary formations" -- and he next emphasizes its worldwide continuity -- and says it appears to have been formed by the "continuous rapid deposition of SEDIMENTS -- SEDIMENTS PLURAL. "Continuous rapid deposition" does NOT mean "simultaneous" as you put it somewhere yesterday. It means RELATIVELY RAPID considering how much sheer volume of stuff is involved.
he argues elsewhere for "sequential" deposition, admittedly. but sequential -- within a period of 150 days, and all deposited by the great flood. Of course. And there was no need for arguing that "elsewhere," Arach, it's OBVIOUS he was talking about sequential deposition in the first quote. How on earth could he have been talking about anything else? He's talking about the EXISTING OBSERVABLE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN. Good grief.
so yes, virginia, there is a yec that says such a thing. Absolutely not. He neither said AT ONCE, nor ONE LAYER. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
However your prediction as to a response is probably accurate.
it's the cure-all solution. when in doubt, blame it on the flood. That's a smarmy lie. The Flood is the well considered explanation for a great deal of phenomena. It isn't just thrown in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's been answered a million times over and it's off topic on this thread. And that thread is just a lot of stupid jokes.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Arachnid writes: Faith writes: That's fine. I already said paleontology has to go in my first message on this thread. ...all of paleontology? As I've said half a dozen times already, OF COURSE Paleontology is one of the sciences that is most at odds with YEC. What's strange about that? I nevertheless assume there's a lot of everyday science they do too that isn't a complete loss. From my Message 9 which was answering Message 1 in detail:
anglagard writes: Paleontology - ages of fossils would require recalibration, current evolutionary relationships would be nonexistant.
Faith writes: That is for sure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All this crap about creationist motivations is off topic and illegitimate argument in any case. Creationists ARE geared to answering evolutionism at this point. Nothing wrong with that, it's exactly what they should be doing. There aren't that many of them. We can hope that eventually we'll have some good independent creationist science too. It will come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This thread is not for getting specific. I consider it a LOT to have been accomplished on this thread to get two scientific descriptions of everyday scientific work on the table where it is clear that one is fine with YEC and the other probably completely fine with YEC.
If you are having a problem with definitions that's your problem.Your mangling of what Henry Morris said doesn't bode well for your ability to understand a definition even if I provided one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OFF TOPIC!!! You and jar are doing exactly what Moose said would happen to this thread, taking it into minutiae of scientific questions, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I DID NOT ANSWER YOU BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLETE TANGENT, WHICH I ALREADY EXPLAINED ONCE, and would get me off what I want to do on this thread. You are just wasting space on this thread with your questions, and so is Arach with his stupid remarks about creationist motivations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024