Always a laugh

Thats all fine and dandy, but if your going to make an assertion like this one, you are going to need some backup. So? Back it up. Give me an example of why I should believe your erroneous proclimation against creation science.------------------

I think that this is the biggest understanding of what creation science is. Now if you wan't to argue with an individual creationists credibility, go right ahead, you might get somewhere, and might even win or get the favor. But this does not demean any relevance of creation science as being scientific. As all creation science is, is science. Thats it, plain and simple. It was just given a name to know that when you start hearing about creation science, you know that it involves a creationist interperetation, as all evidence requires interperetation. It is one thing to argue with creation science, it is another thing to argue with an interperetation in which a scientist (being creationist) perceives the evidence given by science.
--Also, creationism is not to argue with, as it is religious indeed, it is higher on your hierarchy of systematical branches within philosophical, theological, and scientific realms.------------------

"When did the Statement of Faith become a part of the Scientific Method?Creation science isn't science, it's the polar opposite: trying to make evidence fit a prior conclusion."
--Thats just it, there is no faith in the workings of creation science. Its the conclusions by interperetation in creationism that includes any type of faith to some degree or another.------------------

The problem is, that creation science, all it is is the evidence, its not how creationism gives its conclusion. As for the statements of faith on various web sites, that is their creationist beleifs sealed in a box, any faith is not included in creation science.------------------

Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.------------------

"Gee, then what 'theories' would you like to discuss?"
--Whichever one you would like to hear and discuss.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-08-2002]

"Give me a scientific theory that relates to creationism. I keep asking and you disappear when I ask."
--Hm.. I don't think I disapear, I know I've addressed this before, I would like you to tell me what you would like to be associated with? What kind of explination would you like. There is a Theory for everything really that the creationists have, lets discuss one of a specific nature. I would find it more interesting if you would tell me what you would like me to explain, like I would rather ask you how you explain something. Probley because I don't have the Evolutionist mind-set, that is, It is harder for me to point out fallacies on the creationist side than the Evolutionists.------------------

"How about providing a scientific theory? What is the problem with that? I'm leaving this as broad as you like. I would like you to explain any natural phenomenon using 'creationist science'? Clear? Good. You can be specific and identify one."
--Well if you seriously just wan't a theory, ok, I was giving you the ability to tell me what you want the theory to be about. But lets see, a creationist theory. There has been much discussion, for instance, on the theory of Impact craters, I presented my own rudimentary theory on a plausable reason we may find some 'craters', I will present two views. My first theory, I would call the impact culdera theory, now I have not put this through much discussion, I have just given a basic presentation. I'll quote myself.

quote:

---

Also, a another plausable explination for the emense size of craters is from colapse of magma reservoirs creating hollow chambers the collapse under the weight, which was eroded by a factor of the global flood covering the collapsed magma reservoir. Just a thought form some reading I've been doing on Marine Geology.

---

quote:

---

This is an image of the Halemaumau Volcano in Hawaii, this is a Caldera formed by this action.

​

​

--As you can see in the image it is quite relativelly circular and is vastly emense. If this crater were to have the effects of erosion from a large amount of water as if a lake, at its rim, it would turn out much more circular than it currently is.

---

--My other plausable theory on this would be, that at the point of impact by the celectial object, whether comet, meteorite, or some other body that hit the earth. It would be that by the effects of a possible factor in the initial impact, would have been greatly effective in the calculation in the velocity or size of the impacting body. The factors quantifying the characteristics of the crater we observe today could be from different causes, for instance, viscosity of the compound impacted, the material that was impacted, its fluid saturation, amount of solidification and depth by which it is solidified.
--A conclusion at this point in this theory is that factors in the initial impact would have been much more 'leanient' if such a word would be used. That is, the impacted material, in theory would have been a time during the flood or shortly after in where non-solidified/lithified sediments were impacted and this Water saturated sediment was thrown into the air. Continuing to remain saturated by the effects of emense clouds of vapor covering a high portion of the earth, and simply returned to earth within a still large radius from impact.
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.--These are my two theories on the Creation of the various impact craters, within the realms of science of a different interperetation. These are my rudimentary, non-peer reviewed as-of-yet theories.------------------

"very interesting, itll also be interesting to see if your right."
--Personally, I would expect a hit by my 'Caldera impact theory'. As possible remnants of the reservoir, which would intern trigger the cause of this collapse, caused either by Meteor impact or was itself a cause on its own without celestial devestation, would need to be evident or a feasable explination. Though I would also speculate that such a remnant would never had been considerd, thus examined the possibility.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-10-2002]

"Are you trying to explain impact craters as being indeed volcanic calderas?"
--Yes, just a thought, and I thought I would suggest it."I think the characteristics of the two are clearly distinguishable."
--Very possibly yes, as I pointed out, there should be something you can get at."And what does this have to do with the evolution/creation debate?"
--They wanted Creationist theory. So I gave 2 of my thoughts on how cratering impacts could form within our time-scale without ending the world simmultaniously.------------------

"To have a volcanic caldera, you must first have a volcano. If there are no volcanic rocks present, that eliminates it being a caldera.Even if volcanic rocks are present, impact structures show characteristics such as high pressure formed minerals and related fracture patterns."
--Actually, you don't have to have a 'volcano', that is, it does not have to have come to the point of eruption, but it must have had a resevoir that was once a holding tank of magma and have it drain by some mechenism, this mechenism is one I currently can't think of as of yet.------------------

"You can't drain a reservoir without having a volcano."
--Thats my problem, for that theory to be considerable I would need this mechenism, and I would rather not start blabbing off possibilities on what I don't even know about fully yet."You can't even have a reservoir without metmorphosizing local rocks, and drilling of craters, magnetometry, gravimetrics, and seismic profilings should have detected those reservoirs."
--You can have a reservoir if preasure is exerted upwordly by the mantal towards the lithosperic crust in such a way that it would reach a point where it can build a holding tank like structure under the crust. By some mechenism by which it could drain out of the reservoir and get 'sucked' back into the mantle, but again I can't think of a plausable mechenism by which this could happen. I do have another theory on the large impact craters, which havent been addressed yet. Also, as I stated previously, I didn't expect my Impact culdra theory to take off like a rocket, or be a big hit or anything.------------------

"A long response I wrote was devoured by the posting process."
--Its allright, happens all the time with many of my posts."The impact sites I have personally visited (Odessa, Barringer) contained no volcanics. The lack of volcanics inside craters was cited early in crater research (by D.M. Barringer) as evidence against volcanic origin."
--Very plausable, this is quite what I would expect, did they take core samples in any impact sites?"I recommend the following simple introduction to impact craters."
--I read the barringercrater one a couple days ago, its allright, but I guess I would really be looking for more detailed information."Also see the following for an incomplete list of craters, demonstrating how common they are on Earth:"
--Things were quite in a ruckuss during that flood. I would expect about half from Flood origin.--Have you considered my other theory I posted?------------------

"I think so but I don't know where they're located. I do know that Barringer drilled several times in costly (and futile) attempts to find the meteorite. Mention of the findings of the boring can be found in the 1988 reprint of "Guidebook to the Geology of Meteor Crater, Arizona" by Shoemaker and Kieffer, page 8. (Center for Meteorite Studies at ASU) Between 300-650 ft crushed sandstone and meteoritic material, 600 ft abundant meteoritic material and meteoritic metal inclusions in natural glass. 700 ft and down ordinary Supai formation sandstone."
--I remember reading this, somewhere on the same site that you gave me the link to on your last post. Odd how they didn't find the meteor to verify their calculations and all, though I would agree it probley would have drilled through alot of sedement, probably more than they would expect if the area of impact was not solidified."I'm sure that craters are cored on a regular basis but I don't think I have any discussions of the cores or the findings."
--Hm.. I'll have to look around, if you find any information on core samples, i'd like to see the results."I haven't read it, could you tell me where it's posted?"
--My second part of post #37, I'll quote myself:

quote:

---

--My other plausable theory on this would be, that at the point of impact by the celectial object, whether comet, meteorite, or some other body that hit the earth. It would be that by the effects of a possible factor in the initial impact, would have been greatly effective in the calculation in the velocity or size of the impacting body. The factors quantifying the characteristics of the crater we observe today could be from different causes, for instance, viscosity of the compound impacted, the material that was impacted, its fluid saturation, amount of solidification and depth by which it is solidified.
--A conclusion at this point in this theory is that factors in the initial impact would have been much more 'leanient' if such a word would be used. That is, the impacted material, in theory would have been a time during the flood or shortly after in where non-solidified/lithified sediments were impacted and this Water saturated sediment was thrown into the air. Continuing to remain saturated by the effects of emense clouds of vapor covering a high portion of the earth, and simply returned to earth within a still large radius from impact.
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.

---

------------------

"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?------------------