|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Flood = many coincidences | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Excellent point. iN fact its not just religion but almost every people group has a flood story especially if that oral or written history was written down long ago.
Its exactly as it would be if there had been a great flood and so it would dominate every peoples memory of their origins. The bible just fleshes out the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
From what you said I don't my error. Its fine to look at rocks in strata and understand their volcanic origin. Yet i still say the study of their cooling from hot to cold is not geology . Its atomic realignment of matter.
Geology is not atomic but merely processes on finished materials. In science labels matter. Thats the whole point to specific species names. Creationism demands that careful investigation on concepts and points must be made before you have us agree to your ideas.Nows the time top marks on tests matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Perhaps we should let geologists decide what geology is. Many of them would find it quite difficult to study rocks without knowing what rocks are made of. It's quite a basic consideration. How, for example, would you go about studying the chemical weathering of granite without knowing its chemical composition? --- if you had to do so while being neutral on the question of whether it was composed of (a) felsic minerals (b) cotton candy (c) green cheese? I must say that it speaks very poorly of creationists when you demand (as you have done repeatedly) that scientists should be obliged to ignore relevant facts. And what can be more relevant to the study of rocks than the question of what rocks are made of. geology is about processes explaining the earth under our feet. the material, rocks etc, is just itself a aid to understand these processes. Getting into the atomic components of rocks is another subject with very minor overlapping with geology. You could break down everything to its atoms but miss the processes that are the origin of change. Geology is forces acting upon materials. material makeup must be essential to understand the process for it to be geology. Theres overlap but not too much. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Minnemooseus writes: quote: Robert, if it has anything to do with the formation of rock, it is part of geologic study. Igneous petrology - The study of igneous rocks and their origins. The solidification of a magma is the precipitation of crystals out of a solution (albeit a very hot solution). You may wish to call the study "geochemistry", or call it "igneous petrology", or even call it something else, but it is part of the geological sciences. Moose - the proud owner of a very rusty geology bachelors of science (BS) degree Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth.Rocks themselves are just a part of this. Geology is not about just rocks. Processes dealing with material are more important in fact. They put all studies of the material in the great genus of geology but names matter. The particular areas are rightly segregated as different subjects. Breaking down the material to atomic components has little to do with geology as a explanation for great results of the earth. To be geology there must be a result affecting the earth. Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology. If after broken then are affected by processes then okay. They just have to merge all related matters into some big group. theres overlap but origin issues deal with processes affecting material. no need for chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Percy writes: Hi Robert, Even other creationists don't agree with how you're defining geology, for example, Steven Austin, professor of geology and chair of the Department of Geology of the Institute for Creation Research. You're just making things up so you can focus attention away from the many things you're wrong about, though in the course of doing this you just introduce more wrong things, like denying even the simple dictionary definition of geology. But as far as this discussion goes we can leave the definition of geology aside and treat it as just a label. The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:
For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence? --Percy Steve Austin is a great creationist thinker. yet I still say that these dating methods of yours and cooling ideas are not processes that affect anything people understand to be geology. Geology is about forces acting on material on earth etc. Whats being brought up here is chemistry or other worthy fields. Magna cooling leads to rocks and the rocks are the geology. nOt the cooling. molten material if continued in its state of liquid would have little to do with the study of processes affecting geological change. Just as water can affect geology it itself is not a item of geology. A different study with different processes. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Adminnemooseus writes: 1) Concerning message formatting - I've "personal messaged" you, asking that you make it a practice to insert blank lines between your paragraphs. Doing such makes for nicer reading, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your content - If nothing else, it looks much better! 2) I fail to see the relevance of whether or not an aspect of scientific study can be properly be called geologic study. Please drop that issue, or at least propose a new topic specific to such. Minnemooseus would even be willing to "Great Debate" you on the matter. Now a side side note from the non-admin mode:
Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth. If you had stopped right there, you would have been in pretty good shape. Although substituting "processes" for "forces" would be an improvement.
Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology. Chemical breakdown of rocks is "A process acting on material with results pertaining to the earth." You contradict yourself. While I make no claims to being even in the upper half of "geologist quality", I did manage to graduate college with a geology degree. And much to all of what you are saying isn't geology, was indeed covered in my geology classes. To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. Adminnemooseus (and Minnemooseus) Alright blank lines. Thought I did it enough. I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast. Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here. Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note. Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes. They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Percy writes: The issue we were discussing was the cooling of magma into rock underground. Magma intrudes into rock and then cools, and by looking at things like grain size one can see how rapidly the magma cooled into rock. Radiometric techniques can establish the age. Taq provided you a link that describes such evidence (Radiometric Dating, Paleosols and the Geologic Column), and here is just a little of that evidence:
For more details please visit the link. What is your response to this evidence? --Percy I'll put another way.If the magna never cooled and stayed in its magna state it would not be a act or result of geology. Ionly after the chemical reaction has stopped and the material, upon cooling and another reaction, becomes hard or rock is it to be seen as geology. So magna processes are not a part of geology. only the finished material after the magna has ceased to be. Species matters here. This was my problem. i can't see a chemical action being applied to a geological issue. In nature boundaries over lap but they exist. Cooling calcuactions is not geology. its chemistry.I have no interest in that and its not evidence for geological claims in a geology section. its about rocks and bigger rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
You brought up the issue of cooling as evidence for geological claims.
My criticism was dead on. Geology should be about processes moving stuff about. not dating concepts from chemical reactions. likewise you again bring up this radiometric thing. Thats not geology. Thats very atomic types of things. Theres no geology here one could put a shovel into. i need geological points as i have no interest or ability in these atomic concepts. They are boring. I need movement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
anglagard writes: Robert Byers writes: I use the word forces instead of processes because geology is about results in structures of the earth. Chemical breakdown is so minor in affecting the earth structures that in effect its a atomic process on low power merely breaking things done.Geology surely is about forces moving things however slow or fast. Chemistry is on a boundary of the real segregational divisions here. Chemical break down is trivial as any evidence of earth events and processes of note. Geology is about pick axes and dynamite. Not test tubes. They just have to include it in geology class under a big tent because it rides a boundary in a minor way. not the real mccoy as i see it. The absolute ignorance of this statement leaves me aghast. Look up the term "geochemistry" in Wikipedia, if you can't be bothered to visit a library. Signed - one with a BS in Geological Engineering and a Master's in categorizing knowledge. However, I do not have a PhD in geochemistry, even though it is offered by dozens of universities. Is that what I need to convince you the field exists? "Pearls for Swine" - Monty Python It did turn into a interesting conversation.i do say the operative word here is CHEMISTRY. all they did was apply chemial ideas into minor matters of sediment consolidation. They made a big tent but are wrong to see the real processes of earth sediment as related to special cases of chemistry or bugs making holes in the dirt. I guess they would call that biologicalgeological processes. Its just bugs and not geology. Its joining very different subjects together for special investigation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024