Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
145 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1256
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 31 of 137 (722430)
03-21-2014 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
03-21-2014 4:02 AM


Re: Craters on the dark side of the moon
I wasn't suggesting an absence of any volcanic activity - I was saying to you that for the moon to have 300,000 calderas, over one mile wide, on just the visible bit of the moon, (and just over the course of 6,000 years at that), it would have to be spectacularly volcanic. Not just historically a bit volcanic.
And the bit about them being so evenly distributed over the moon's surface was important too. Volcanos generally form along fault lines (google "ring of fire", and ignore the results involving spicy food). Volcanos don't uniformly cover a body's surface

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 4:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:02 AM vimesey has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 137 (722431)
03-21-2014 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by vimesey
03-21-2014 5:24 AM


Re: Craters on the dark side of the moon
Oh, OK.

But you weren't saying it to me because I hadn't yet posted on this thread.

By the way I do find this topic interesting but don't have the time or energy to put into it right now. You'd asked if anyone knew what creationist theories are out there about the asteroid impacts and I didn't know but managed to find out that there are some creationist ideas floating around. I've got too many things on my mind to get into this very deeply although it does interest me. So far only you and a couple others have even said anything about the particular theories involved, the others being more interested in the usual ridicule and debunkery. Unfortunately I think I'm the only YEC here but I'd like to see someone come along and argue one of the YEC theories. Guess it isn't likely to happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by vimesey, posted 03-21-2014 5:24 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by vimesey, posted 03-21-2014 8:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 137 (722433)
03-21-2014 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
03-20-2014 12:28 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Wow, is there anything the Flood can't do?

Yes, I agree it seems quite farfetched to try to explain the asteroid craters in relation to the Flood, which is probably why I haven't spent any time on it. Perhaps it's not as silly as it sounds but I guess I'm not going to find out.

But then you go on to the usual arguments that only sound farfetched after you've caricatured them to make it so:

* It can deposit sedimentary rocks in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of geologists, to the extent, even, of perfectly mimicking subaerial deposition.

* It can give igneous rocks the appearance of age in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of geologists.

* It can arrange fossils within the rocks in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of biologists.

Of course what I find absolutely astonishing is how phenomena that could only be the result of a one-time event involving a huge quantity of water, which laid down SEPARATE DIFFERENT SEDIMENTS with DEAD THINGS buried in them, get explained as enormously long eras of time in which ONLY those sediments were laid down (as if the Mississippian period was the period of Redwall Limestone or whatever its sediment happens to be and only redwall limestone was ever laid down in those multiplied millions of years) and ONLY those creatures buried in that sediment were alive during that "time period" and so on. Now THAT is true magic for you.

* It can create asteroids to age the face of the Moon and the planets in such a way as to accord perfectly with the expectations of astronomers.

Once a scientist is committed to a particular theory of age then that's what the scientist "sees" wherever he or she looks. Perfectly understandable. Also perfectly understandable that a person committed to the time table of the Bible "sees" it all quite differently.

Me, I don't know yet what to make of the asteroids. It makes sense to me that they would be connected with the Fall or the Flood in some way because they are a destructive phenomenon, but how they came about I haven't studied yet. On the Biblical timetable the craters would have had to have been created in a relatively short period of time, and a time when few were around to witness it. That makes the Flood period the best time, even perhaps over a few hundred years. And its being a time of general upheaval adds to that likelihood.

And it does all this without God mentioning it in the Bible, because although he agrees with YECs he also wants them to look like idiots. So he carefully gave the waters of the Flood these miraculous powers to fake the appearance of an old Earth and of evolution, but didn't mention this anywhere in his Word...

What's really amazing is that you can swallow the utterly stupendously ridiculous status quo theory while ridiculing the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Pressie, posted 03-21-2014 6:57 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2014 9:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2092
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 34 of 137 (722436)
03-21-2014 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-21-2014 6:21 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I don't normally comment on what Faith writes down, but this one was particularly funny:

Faith writes:

Once a scientist is committed to a particular theory of age...

We all have been told numerous times what a theory is in science.

Age is not a theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 35 of 137 (722437)
03-21-2014 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-21-2014 6:21 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Faith writes:

Once a scientist is committed to a particular theory of age then that's what the scientist "sees" wherever he or she looks. Perfectly understandable.

Don't try to change history Faith.

Pretty much all 19th century Western scientists believed what you believe about the age of the earth. They only very grudgingly changed their collective minds over time when they were presented with the overwhelming evidence. That's what science does and faith doesn't.

Also perfectly understandable that a person committed to the time table of the Bible "sees" it all quite differently.

Now that IS correct. You start with a belief and try to make reality fit - regardless of the fact that it plainly doesn't.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 7:41 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 1:06 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 137 (722438)
03-21-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
03-21-2014 7:17 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Pretty much all 19th century Western scientists believed what you believe about the age of the earth. They only very grudgingly changed their collective minds over time when they were presented with the overwhelming evidence. That's what science does and faith doesn't.

James Hutton was eighteenth century. While it took a while for his purely subjective speculative interpretation of the age of Siccar Point in millions of years to take hold, thanks to Lyell it had pretty much taken hold by the time Darwin came along in the middle of the 19th century, which Darwin found very useful for his thinking on evolution. There were still some creationists around, but what they were presented with was hardly "overwhelming evidence," it was still that purely subjective speculative interpretation, which by then had acquired a few more millions of years, also purely subjective and speculative, and far from "overwhelming evidence." Eventually you got radiometric dating which seemed to make it all objective and factual but the discrepancies and errors have to be rationalized away to maintain that illusion. All you guys have for any of it remains speculation, hypothesis and theory although you just LOVE to call it "overwhelming evidence." Perhaps you even believe it, that's even sadder.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 7:17 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 41 by JonF, posted 03-21-2014 10:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1256
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.6


Message 37 of 137 (722445)
03-21-2014 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
03-21-2014 6:02 AM


Re: Craters on the dark side of the moon
By the way I do find this topic interesting but don't have the time or energy to put into it right now.

Fair enough, but I hope that you (or another YECer) will be able to at some point. The attraction of this topic for me is that the challenge to the YEC chronology and narrative is quite accessible, not requiring a great depth of scientific expertise (which I don't have). Useful participation is much easier for me than rolling up my sleeves and improving on my basic awareness of genetics, for example, so I could debate some more of the evolution threads.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 137 (722460)
03-21-2014 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
03-21-2014 6:21 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Of course what I find absolutely astonishing is how phenomena that could only be the result of a one-time event involving a huge quantity of water, which laid down SEPARATE DIFFERENT SEDIMENTS with DEAD THINGS buried in them, get explained as enormously long eras of time in which ONLY those sediments were laid down (as if the Mississippian period was the period of Redwall Limestone or whatever its sediment happens to be and only redwall limestone was ever laid down in those multiplied millions of years) and ONLY those creatures buried in that sediment were alive during that "time period" and so on. Now THAT is true magic for you.

Hey, remember how you don't know anything about geology? If this has slipped your mind, consult any of the threads in which you discuss geology.

Once a scientist is committed to a particular theory of age then that's what the scientist "sees" wherever he or she looks. Perfectly understandable.

Creationists are not, in fact, "perfectly understandable". You know that asteroid strikes are rare. How many new craters (big enough that we can see them) have appeared on the Moon in your lifetime? Your father's? Your grandfathers'? It just doesn't happen that often. Taking this at face value, it took a long time for the Moon to get that beat up. It takes a rather special sort of mind to confront the evidence and say: "Ah, clearly this was caused very rapidly as a consequence of the Earth flooding." To describe creationists as halfwitted religious zealots names the defect but does not provide actual insight into the condition.

Me, I don't know yet what to make of the asteroids. It makes sense to me that they would be connected with the Fall or the Flood in some way because they are a destructive phenomenon, but how they came about I haven't studied yet.

I guess "in some way" is a refinement of your previous "somehow" theory.

What's really amazing is that you can swallow the utterly stupendously ridiculous status quo theory while ridiculing the Flood.

To you, the ability to understand basic geology may indeed seem amazing, verging on the supernatural. For me it's trivial --- as subjects go, it's a lot easier than advanced math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 6:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Pressie, posted 03-21-2014 10:22 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8200
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 39 of 137 (722461)
03-21-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
03-21-2014 7:41 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
No Faith, you don't get to re-write history or science the way you'd like it to be.

The young earth idea was abandonned because it was proven to be wrong - despite decades of trying to maintain the prevailing view - just like the flat earth idea.

No-one but the delusional now thinks either of those disproven ideas are correct.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


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

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2092
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 40 of 137 (722464)
03-21-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
03-21-2014 9:50 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Dr Adequate writes:

To you, the ability to understand basic geology may indeed seem amazing, verging on the supernatural. For me it's trivial --- as subjects go, it's a lot easier than advanced math.

As a practising geologist with a little bit of understanding of maths (actually not much); Amen to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-21-2014 9:50 AM Dr Adequate 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

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 2640 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 42 of 137 (722469)
03-21-2014 10:44 AM


Wow, do people actually think attacking the speaker using veiled insults is the best way to promote their scientific viewpoint? It appears so in this thread where people hurl cleverly phrased insults back and forth rather than reading and responding to the facts presented.

Also a lot of the posters assume because someone else isn't as knowledgeable as them that they are somehow lesser thinkers. When someone says "such and such is a theory on X website." responding with "Haha, more YEC drivel" is probably not the best way to get to the truth.

Overall I see very little actual discussion, just insults and logical fallacies being hurled back and forth.

Edit: I've also noticed the logical fallacy of Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false and Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.

Edited by lokiare, : Forgot one logical fallacy used.


Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 03-21-2014 11:44 AM lokiare has 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

  
lokiare
Member (Idle past 2640 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 03-18-2014


Message 44 of 137 (722472)
03-21-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by JonF
03-21-2014 11:44 AM


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

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by JonF, posted 03-21-2014 11:44 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by JonF, posted 03-21-2014 12:29 PM lokiare 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021