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:   Creationism Road Trip
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(12)
Message 136 of 409 (680059)
11-17-2012 12:42 PM


Faith
I have fought your side of this for years and it is indefensible. I am currently a geology student and the only possible area of the earth for the flood to have occurred is the Hadean/Archean boundary. All of other theories fail to explain all the evidence. The only problem with my theory is the it places the age of the flood at 3.9 billion years ago and with accelerated radioactive decay you have problems with mechanism and with heat dissipation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 12:43 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 137 of 409 (680139)
11-17-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Coyote
11-17-2012 12:13 PM


Margins of error and effect on dates
Hi Coyote,
It raises doubt because you are predisposed to not accept either the method or the results. The reason for sending so many samples is we were dealing with a large and complex site. There were four separate components there, and we wanted to establish the age and range of each one.
Another thing to point out is what the margins of error from the various known causes, including those that Faith raises, are tested and included in the margins of error in each of the techniques for the dates derived.
ie - the measured, tested, evaluated, confirmed error in tree ring counting is 0.5% over an 8,000 year sample: there are sources of error, but they don't add up to a significant effect on the accuracy of dendrochronology.
When we look at the calibration curve for 14C dating:
14C Calibration and Correlations, Message 1: Not only was there a strong correlation between the three dendrochronologies, there was also a strong correlation in each one with the actual amount of 14C left in the tree rings. When calculated for radioactive decay and compared to the dendrochronology they showed this calibration curve:
Note that the curve has almost continuous small jagged variations around a smooth curve.
Each of the dendrochronologies have the same jagged variations. At the same times.
Now we can use the 14C scale as a logarithmic scale representation of the actual empirical objective measured ratio of 14C/12C, and then take your test results and draw a horizontal line to the intersection/s with the calibration curve -- and we can see that there are several places where you can get multiple results, giving you a source of error that is known.
When we combine the known errors of dendrochronology, 14C production (jags) variation, and the 14C/12C measurement errors, it results in the possible error for this method.
This error is insufficient to convert the ages covered by dendrochrology -- the tree ring chronology is continuous and unbroken for over 12,460 years before the present day -- to fit within a 6000 year young earth scenario.
Similarly, all of Faiths objections fall inside the possible errors of date measurements, but don't add up to enough change to results to fit.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Coyote, posted 11-17-2012 12:13 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 138 of 409 (680154)
11-18-2012 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by foreveryoung
11-17-2012 12:42 PM


Bible versus Geology
Yes, forever, I'd seen some of your posts on the subject of the Flood, and find your choice of where to place the Flood arbitrary and contrary to the Bible, as well as ridiculous considering the scale of a worldwide Flood. Such a Flood wouldn't have left such paltry evidence on the planet. If it didn't form the entire geological column it certainly didn't form one particular layer of it or anything that would have to be searched for at all.
If we don't start with the Bible forget the Flood altogether. If it didn't occur when the Bible says it occurred there's no point in thinking it occurred at all, you've completely rejected the Biblical witness. This is an either/or, it's either the Bible or it's establishment Geology. It would be far better that you do geology with the old earth assumptions and forget the Bible altogether than try to make God's word conform to human thought.
Also, it would be unusual if you'd "fought my side" of this as most creationists don't explain the entire geological column by the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by foreveryoung, posted 11-17-2012 12:42 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2012 1:10 AM Faith has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 139 of 409 (680156)
11-18-2012 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
11-18-2012 12:43 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
Hi Faith,
Faith writes:
If it didn't form the entire geological column
Can you give me Scriptual evidence that the flood formed the entire geological column.
If you want you can pm your answer or email me.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 12:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 1:34 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 140 of 409 (680157)
11-18-2012 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by ICANT
11-18-2012 1:10 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
No, scripture doesn't describe what the Flood did to the earth, it's entirely an inference that it would have left evidence on such a prodigious scale.
Creationist arguments that supposedly derive from the Bible don't have to have direct scriptural evidence, they just have to fit the general revelation and above all they must not CONTRADICT the Biblical revelation. Explanations in terms of an old earth or huge periods of time contradict it.
Further evidence for the geological column as the result of the Flood includes the billions of dead things within the column that would have lived before the Flood and died in that catastrophe.
And as I keep saying on various threads the appearance of the strata, especially as seen in the Grand Canyon where it's most exposed, shows nothing whatever that would explain it in terms of successive ages. There's no difference in their condition or general appearance whatever. The only disturbance of the entire column that occurred there -- or anywhere -- obviously occurred after the entire stack was formed. That's when the canyon was cut. No canyons were cut in earllier layers, go take a look.
It was after the strata were already laid down wherever they occurred that they were subjected to all the different kinds of disturbances such as the twisting and buckling caused by tectonic forces, and the unconformities as well.
The look of the strata suggests sudden deposition of the whole kit and kaboodle in one event. And there is other evidence for that I've also mentioned, such as Steve Austin's study of the nautiloid layer in the redwall limestone of the GC, where such a huge number of these creatures are found the only reasonable explanation is that they died in a catastrophic event.
In other words there's a lot of factual stuff you have to take into account to see how it fits the revelation of the Flood. And again, none of it can contradict the Bible or you're out of bounds.
If you believe the Biblical witness you have to reject any explanation that requires death to have occurred before the Fall, which eliminates evolution right there. Death is the consequence of sin and the Flood was God's judgment on the world for sin, saving only a very few out of the disaster. Evolution is the only other explanation for the dead things in the strata, and it contradicts the Biblical witness.
And so on and so forth. Can't argue the whole thing in one short post.
ABE: This is interesting, however. I tend to avoid the creationists on this forum because I so strongly disagree with most of your arguments, at least those that touch on the issues I usually argue about. I also disagreed with foreveryoung's but we agree on conservative issues and got onto that track of argument for a bit and I put the creationist stuff aside for the moment. But it might be interesting to have a thread where nothing but creationists argue out these things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : to add some stuff, the last paragraph particularly.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : Grammar corrections and etc.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2012 1:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 6:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by foreveryoung, posted 11-18-2012 10:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 147 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 12:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 149 by ICANT, posted 11-18-2012 1:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 141 of 409 (680165)
11-18-2012 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
11-18-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
Reading this you'd think that the only geology on the planet was in the Grand Canyon.
I live on the South Coast of England on a bit of geology called chalk, it forms the famous white cliffs which I can almost see from my window as I type.
This is how geologists say the area where I live was formed:
25 million years ago
Long before man appeared on the planet, the south east of England was a low-lying landscape covered by a large shallow freshwater lake with several rivers flowing into it. These rivers carried vast amounts of clay or mud, which started to build up in layers on the bed of the lake. Eventually the clays reached a thickness of nearly 200 metres, forming the first layer known as the Weald Clay.

110 million years ago — the sea breaks through?

The land continued to sink until eventually the ocean broke in laying down massive layers of sand known as Lower Greensand. The sea gradually deepened and the waters became still. Under these conditions, a thick dark mud collected known as Gault Clay. After this period, there were strong underwater currents in the sea and the sandier sediments of the Upper Greensand were deposited.
97 million years ago — chalk and flint
It was during this time that the sea began to lay down the chalk of the South Downs as we know it today. Chalk is a white soft limestone, which has been formed from the skeletons of marine creatures deposited, squeezed and eventually fossilised on the sea-bed. This process continued for 20 million years and to a thickness of more than 300 metres . The white, pure limestone of the Chalk is superbly exposed at the great chalk cliffs of the Seven Sisters between the River Cuckmere and Beachy Head near Eastbourne.
The chalk contains flint which is the only hard rock to be found on the Downs. If you look at the great chalk cliffs of the Seven Sisters near Eastbourne you will be able to see narrow, dark grey bands of flint at regular intervals of a metre or so, up the cliff face. Flint was formed from the skeletons of minute animals, such as radiolarians, that floated around in those ancient seas.
After a field has been freshly ploughed, it looks like a stony wasteland as you can see how the flints have been unearthed and risen to the surface. Early people on the Downs found that they could use the razor-sharp edges of flaked flint as a cutting tool. Some of the best preserved flint mines can be found on the South Downs, especially at Cissbury, above Worthing. You can also see displays on flint working at Worthing Museum.
65 million years ago
It was at the beginning of this period that the ocean floor began to rise, the sea became shallower and the formation of chalk stopped. Deposits of clays, pebbles and sands were laid down.
20 million years — The Alpine Storm
Did you know?
Chalk contains visible fossils of creatures that lived in the sea 90 million years ago, including ammonites, sea urchins and fish sponges.
During this time the South Downs were raised from the seabed, through the movement of the earth’s crust. The land masses or ‘tectonic plates’ of Africa and Europe moved towards each other and collided. The rocks were pushed up and created mountain ranges, including the Himalayas and the Alps. The south east of England was caught up in this ‘Alpine Storm’ and the ripples pushed the layers of rock upwards forming a vast extended dome of chalk (See Figure 3). The neat layers of sands, clays and chalk, laid down over millions of years in fresh and salt water gradually hardened into rock.
Over millions of years, the landscape has gradually changed shape to form the South Downs as we know it today. The centre of the dome has been eroded. The soft chalk at the top of the dome gradually cracked and crumbled and the falling rain carried off these shattered pieces of chalk. This left an outer upstanding rim of chalk surrounding a lowland plain formed from older layers of clay and sandstone. The outer rim of chalk forms the uplands of the North and South Downs and the central plain is known as the Weald.
2 Million years ago - The Ice ages
Although the South East of England was not covered in ice, an intensely cold climate dominated this area. This meant that the rock and soil was frozen for most of the year. Summer rain and melt-water could not soak into the frozen chalk. So this water formed streams which carved out valleys on the Downs. The rapidly melting snow during the last ice age also carried rock and soil from the hillsides on to the floors of the valleys.
The dry valley at Devil's Dyke near Brighton
When the climate became warmer, the frozen ground eventually thawed and the water soaked into the little holes in the chalk, leaving the valleys dry. These dry valleys, known in Sussex as coombes, are V-shaped with steep sides. The Devil’s Dyke, to the north of Brighton, is the most famous of all the chalk dry valleys. Patches of Clay-with-flints can be found in places on top of the Downs. This is the remains of some clay that was once on top of the chalk that got mixed up with flints from the chalk.
http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/...geology/geology-through-time
Now that whole story was derived from hundreds of years of study by thousands of geologists working out, piece by piece, how my chalk cliffs came about.
Now you, Faith, sit at your keyboard and attempt to dream up ways that you can cram that entire history of 125 million years into around 4,500 years.
Doesn't that sound a little absurd to you?
Maybe you could pick just one of the events in that list and give us an explanation for the chalk cliffs? The geologist's view is that it's created by these little critters - Coccolithophores
They're single celled algae - phyloplankton, with a calcium carbonate 'skin'. They inhabit the seas in vast qualities and fall onto the ocean floor when they die. They then fossilised and form chalk. They can be seen in the chalk cliffs - that's what they're made of, billions and billions of single celled organisms living and dying over millions of years.
Now how does a flood create that?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 1:34 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 7:00 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2012 2:33 PM Tangle has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 142 of 409 (680168)
11-18-2012 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tangle
11-18-2012 6:38 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
I live on the South Coast of England on a bit of geology called chalk
Snap Though given by your choice of photo, I think you're a fair bit further east than me
They're single celled algae - phyloplankton, with a calcium carbonate 'skin'. The inhabit the seas in vast qualities and fall onto the ocean floor when they die. The then fossilise and form chalk. They can be seen in the chalk cliffs - that's what they're made of, billions and billions of single celled organisms living and dying over millions of years.
Now how does a flood create that?
My favourite calculation around this is the number of Coccolithophores required to make our observed chalk deposits, and dividing this into the creationist's available volume of water on Earth between Genesis 1 and the flood, to give a density of Coccolithophores per cubic meter of sea water that can only be described as white and gloopy
I must run these figures to make sure I'm not pulling this out of my backside!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 6:38 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 2:55 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 143 of 409 (680179)
11-18-2012 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate
11-07-2012 9:07 PM


A Biblical geologist's take on the road trip
Found this wonderful blog on Biblical Geology, perhaps it's already been linked here but it's new to me and I intend to spend a lot of time on it as well as its sister website Tas Walker's Biblical Geology.
He has three recent blog posts on the Creationist/Conspiracy Road Trip. Good stuff.
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/tag/conspiracy-road-trip/
In one post he points out that Maxwell the host of the trip speaks of skulls supposedly having been "carbon dated" to millions of years.
In another he points out that the geologist Prothero hypes himself as a scientist who "observes," but when he talked about how long it would have taken to form each of the layers that's not observation, that's pure interpretation, or imagination.
Same in the other post where he describes Maxwell is looking at the canyon and saying he "sees" millions of years. Blogger points out that no he doesn't "see" millions of years, what he sees is a big canyon. He's IMAGINING millions of years.
Nice to find someone who's already worked out all the answers I've so laboriously come to on my own (because I usually find creationist web sites to be too huge and too technical. This guy's website is accessible.
I know you're all happy for me.
Catch ya later.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-07-2012 9:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nwr, posted 11-18-2012 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2012 11:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 144 of 409 (680187)
11-18-2012 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
11-18-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
faith writes:
Explanations in terms of an old earth or huge periods of time contradict it.
Why do you say this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 1:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 145 of 409 (680196)
11-18-2012 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
11-18-2012 10:07 AM


Re: A Biblical geologist's take on the road trip
In one post he points out that Maxwell the host of the trip speaks of skulls supposedly having been "carbon dated" to millions of years.
A trivial point. What the scientist said is what matters. That the host of the trip got was confused is of no significance.
In another he points out that the geologist Prothero hypes himself as a scientist who "observes," but when he talked about how long it would have taken to form each of the layers that's not observation, that's pure interpretation, or imagination.
That's your mistake (and that blogger's mistake). The terms "observation" and "observe" are routinely used in science to refer to data and obtaining data.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 146 of 409 (680197)
11-18-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
11-18-2012 10:07 AM


Re: A Biblical geologist's take on the road trip
I have to agree with nwr. Pointing out a gaffe on the part of the host, who is after all, a comedian, not an expert is more a sign of desperation. The most interesting part for me is that he confirmed that Phil was Phil Robinson, an experienced creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 12:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(3)
Message 147 of 409 (680204)
11-18-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
11-18-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
Faith, Creationists have been trying to do this for the last 200 to 300 years. Scientists and naturalists, whose reality included the Biblical flood, had the scientific skills to look for it in the rock record. They could not find it then and the current ones have not been able to find it still.
You, an armchair geologist (no offense) with a naive understanding of geological processes, will certainly never find it on the computer or in your Creationist literature, or even arguing on EvC. Those of us who have studied the earth and walked the rocks, are not trying to deceive you and neither have we been deceived. No one has told us what we have to believe. It's just there, in front of our eyes, and we, as people/scientists with intellectual honesty and integrity, cannot deny what the earth is showing us.
The flood of the Bible never happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 1:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 148 of 409 (680205)
11-18-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
11-18-2012 11:41 AM


Re: A Biblical geologist's take on the road trip
And it's not like this person is basing that interpretation on something he's pulled out of his ass. He's basing it on previous research which suggests that deposition of the strata takes time, burial-compaction-lithification takes time, uplift takes time, and cutting it with a river takes time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2012 11:41 AM PaulK has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 149 of 409 (680212)
11-18-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
11-18-2012 1:34 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
Hi Faith,
Faith writes:
No, scripture doesn't describe what the Flood did to the earth,
That is correct. The Bible does not support the catastrophic flood preached by YEC.
Faith writes:
it's entirely an inference that it would have left evidence on such a prodigious scale.
Actually it is based upon assumptions that are necessary to make the Biblical flood produce a young earth.
Faith writes:
Creationist arguments that supposedly derive from the Bible don't have to have direct scriptural evidence,
Every person that you are argueing with that believes in the BBT is a creationist. According to Stephen Hawking the universe has not always existed. Since it now exist that would require the universe to have a begining to exist. Creation = beginning to exist.
If the Scripture does not support the argument it is not Biblical.
Faith writes:
they just have to fit the general revelation and above all they must not CONTRADICT the Biblical revelation
Are you saying, a person can add anything they want to the Bible as long as it don't CONTRADICT the Biblical revelation, it is OK.
Faith writes:
If you believe the Biblical witness you have to reject any explanation that requires death to have occurred before the Fall, which eliminates evolution right there. Death is the consequence of sin and the Flood was God's judgment on the world for sin, saving only a very few out of the disaster. Evolution is the only other explanation for the dead things in the strata, and it contradicts the Biblical witness.
I do believe the Biblical witness but you don't.
Death has reigned from the day the man formed from the dust of the ground ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Faith writes:
Explanations in terms of an old earth or huge periods of time contradict it.
Then why don't you start a thread in Bible Study and explain to me where the Bible gives the age of the Universe and the Earth. You could also explain how there could not be death billions of years ago.
Assumptions will not count, only what the text says.
Let me stop before I derail the topic.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 1:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 150 of 409 (680220)
11-18-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tangle
11-18-2012 6:38 AM


PICTURE TOO BIG
Hi Tangle,
Can you edit it to use [img=500]Wikimedia Error [/img]
Thanks.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 6:38 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 2:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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