Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
53 online now:
vimesey (1 member, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 3 of 137 (722259)
03-19-2014 11:17 AM


Jorge on TWeb says they aren't impact craters, they're volcanic calderas. Don't expect YEC "explanations" to make any sense.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 11:45 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 11 of 137 (722316)
03-20-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
03-20-2014 1:36 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Very few creationists believe Walt Brown's hydropants fantasy. He's so loony even the loonies think he's loony.

Waltie's asteroid fantasy is probably the stupidest of all YEC fantasies, and that's really saying something. His idea of how the asteroids migrated to their current position is laughable, requiring several Earth-volumes of water to be moved from the Earth into space, and totally ignoring a bigger issue of getting the asteroid orbits into the plane of the Solar system. The latter takes lots of energy applied perpendicularly to the asteroid's orbit.

(His original fantasy was just water shooting out and adding to the fludde. Glenn Morton pointed out that he, an earned PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT, had forgotten his basic thermodynamics. The water would have shot out as superheated steam at greater than escape velocity. So Waltie invented his asteroid fantasy to save his original fantasy. Of course he did so silently without admitting errror.)

But it does go to show that Coyote is right; YEC's, especially you, will buy anything that sounds good without any thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-20-2014 1:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 41 of 137 (722466)
03-21-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
03-21-2014 7:41 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Labeling something as "purely subjective speculative interpretation" does not make it so, nor does it change reality.

And the lame idea that discrepancies are rationalized away is one of the more ludicrous ways that YECs avoid addressing reality. Name one radiometric result that has been rationalized away. Just one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 7:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 43 of 137 (722471)
03-21-2014 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by lokiare
03-21-2014 10:44 AM


Most of us have known Faith for years. She will never accept any scientific argument that contradicts her preconceptions, no matter how well established. The only reason for interacting with her is to learn something from my research on her fantasies and other's refutations, and hope that others may learn from my refutations.

It's unfortunate but understandable that people get irritated when she ignores evidence, misrepresents evidence, refuses to look at evidence, makes up ludicrous fantasies based on abysmal ignorance that she presents as established fact, and claims that references say the opposite of what they actually say. E.g. see Message 31 and the following thread and Message 1 and the long following thread.

I notice that you neglected to provide a reference for your claim of Bulverism. Could you be committing that fallacy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 10:44 AM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 11:49 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 45 of 137 (722479)
03-21-2014 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by lokiare
03-21-2014 11:49 AM


So you do actually think that logical fallacies = winning the discussion. Ok.

Nothing I wrote even hinted at such a thing.

From what I've seen since I joined and what they've posted in this thread its not some huge controversial topic. They said over on X website there is a theory. They didn't even say whether they subscribed to that theory or not. Yet they are getting attacked left and right for daring to mention a theory.

No, the "theory" that has been posted has been attacked, and some unfortunate but understandable comments have been made based on our history with Faith and her enthusiastic participation in insulting other posters. Let's see what has been posted:

quote:
Very few creationists believe Walt Brown's hydropants fantasy. He's so loony even the loonies think he's loony.

Waltie's asteroid fantasy is probably the stupidest of all YEC fantasies, and that's really saying something. His idea of how the asteroids migrated to their current position is laughable, requiring several Earth-volumes of water to be moved from the Earth into space, and totally ignoring a bigger issue of getting the asteroid orbits into the plane of the Solar system. The latter takes lots of energy applied perpendicularly to the asteroid's orbit.

(His original fantasy was just water shooting out and adding to the fludde. Glenn Morton pointed out that he, an earned PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT, had forgotten his basic thermodynamics. The water would have shot out as superheated steam at greater than escape velocity. So Waltie invented his asteroid fantasy to save his original fantasy. Of course he did so silently without admitting error.)

But it does go to show that Coyote is right; YEC's, especially you, will buy anything that sounds good without any thought.


quote:
I know a little bit about that theory. It can't, in an of itself, explain the craters. One of the big issues is that the thermodynamics involved would superheat the water so that it would be vapor in that circumstance. But the other issue has to do with the orbital nature of the moon.

As most are aware, the moon's circular rotation matches its orbit of the Earth. Which means that we only ever have one face of the moon pointing towards the Earth. If the fountains of the deep were responsible for the cratering, they could not have produced craters on the dark side of the moon. It would be akin to firing a shotgun at a stationary, solid target, like a bowling ball. One side of the ball would be peppered with shotgun pellets while the back side was unscathed. But what we seen with the moon is that the cratering covers the entire surface of the moon. Meaning that impact strikes had to occur on the side pointing away from Earth. The fountains of the deep would not have been able to reach that side.


Looks to me as if most of the content is factual and calmly (albeit briefly) presenting reasons why Brown's theory is so ludicrous that no thinking human should be fooled for an instant. Brown's theory is off-topic here, but I'll be glad to participate in a thread about it. Origin of Asteroids is still open. Should you decide to post there I suggest you discuss Brown's mechanism for changing the asteroids' orbital radii and propose a mechanism (which Walt has not) for getting the asteroids' orbital planes into the plane of the Solar system.

I see you have not been able to support your claim of Bulverism. Are you acknowledging that you have no support for it?

And, of course, there's no way you looked at the links I provided in the time between my post and yours. Telling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by lokiare, posted 03-21-2014 11:49 AM lokiare has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by lokiare, posted 03-22-2014 9:36 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 55 of 137 (722544)
03-22-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by lokiare
03-22-2014 9:36 AM


Seriously though, even if someone is the worst most suspect person in the world, you should attack their ideas, not their person.


Very few creationists believe Walt Brown's hydropants fantasy. He's so loony even the loonies think he's loony.

Waltie's asteroid fantasy is probably the stupidest of all YEC fantasies, and that's really saying something. His idea of how the asteroids migrated to their current position is laughable,...

Those aren't attacks. Those are observations. If you want to claim otherwise, let's see some discussion. I notice you cut and ignored my reasoning behind my claims. Extremely telling, and standard YEC practice.

But it does go to show that Coyote is right; YEC's, especially you, will buy anything that sounds good without any thought.

really just paint your side of the argument in a really bad light. Ridiculing your opposition doesn't help your cause.

That's just another observation. Doesn't help any cause but it's a fact. You haven't read the links I provided to back up my claims

You are becoming very boring very quickly. Just another YEC making stuff up and not even attempting to support your claims. That's an observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by lokiare, posted 03-22-2014 9:36 AM lokiare has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 59 of 137 (722555)
03-22-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
03-22-2014 1:55 PM


Re: Back to the asteroids
Walt's theory, loony as it is, is the only YEC asteroid "theroy" I've seen. Most YECs just call them created like the planets. Walt came up with his asteroid "theory" in a lam attempt to save his hydroplate theory after he forgot his basic thermodynamics. He took an impossible "theory" and made it impossible squared.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 60 of 137 (722556)
03-22-2014 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
03-22-2014 1:50 PM


Re: the so called evidence
Siccar point is the evidence. No YEC has come up with a possible explanation for it.

Nobody is interested n any fantasies you make up about it; you are far too ignorant to come up with a possible scenario.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 1:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 2:55 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 66 of 137 (722563)
03-22-2014 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-22-2014 2:55 PM


Re: the so called evidence
No, I still think my explanation is way better than Hutton's. It doesn't take any knowledge other than the ability to recognize how forces would affect layers.

But it does take some knowledge to analyze the rock formation, characterize it, and understand how the rocks originated and how the forces that acted on it arose.

You have not proffered any explanation.

And by the way, your "argument" I'm answering here is the lowest kind of ad hominem. Shouldn't a serious scientist be above such stuff?

Sometimes I think that there's a YEC admissions board, and if you know what ad-hominem is you aren't allowed in.

No, it's not any kind of ad-hominem. It is an insult, one that is true and richly deserved and based on observation of your posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 2:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 77 of 137 (722591)
03-23-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-22-2014 6:09 PM


Re: the so called evidence
To dismiss a person's argument without even stating it, calling the person "ignorant" as the reason for ignoring it, is an ad hominem

Not when the person's ignorance is as well-established as yours. Your ignorance is a fact that must be taken into account when evaluating your fantasies.

However, even as an insult, which you are willing to own, it's extremely bad form on a debate board.

True, but you got it the old-fashioned way. You earned it by years of blithering. And enthusiastic participation in insulting others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 90 of 137 (722616)
03-23-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
03-23-2014 10:47 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
She's explicitly stated that she has no interest in learning anything about geology. Fantasy suits her fine.

Of course she also explicitly stated that she knew most of what Dr. A posted in his intro to geology thread. She likes to lie, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021