Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Continuation of Flood Discussion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 976 of 1304 (732858)
07-11-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 970 by edge
07-11-2014 5:16 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Again I don't get why not limestone since it normally gets laid down as part of the Walther's sequence simply because it's in the oceans.
You have to understand that Walther's sequence is kind of an ideal situation where there is complete transgression/regression over long periods of time. Often, the sequence is interrupted. In your scenario, the biblical flood is so rapid that it would appear to be severely distorted, with little or no time for limestone to be deposited.
Why should it take a great deal of time if there's tons of it suspended in the water that is rising over the land? Five months isn't enough?
For instance, coral reefs should be extinct. They only occur in shallow seas with limited clastic (sand, silt, etc.) input. And we know how slowly the grow.
And this is related to the formation of limestone strata how?
Mainly because of what we don't see. But everything we do see is amenable to long ages and normal sedimentation.
Amenable no doubt, but not necessarily NOT amenable to a shorter time period and unusual sedimentation rates.
I know you're the geologically educated one but nobody has seen a worldwide Flood, no creationists, no geologists, nobody, and what we see now WOULD have been the result of such an event if it had occurred.
So, we really have no idea what it was like, right? We would be basing our ideas on what we don't know.
Oh some of the reconstructions of what may have happened have more plausibility than others, and are not at all based on "what we don't know" as you put it but on what we extrapolate from what we do know to a situation we can only imagine.
In the meantime we have very robust explanations for everything that we see.
Robust perhaps but not always reasonable and not very often really provable.
Why create a fantasy?
We're going the best we can with what God has told us, and we believe God over any scientists who contradict what He has written in really very clear language.
Edited by Faith, : correct quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 970 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 5:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 978 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 6:33 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 977 of 1304 (732859)
07-11-2014 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 969 by edge
07-11-2014 5:01 PM


Re: animated plate tectonics
Nope, not after a couple decades of reading and hearing the best exegetes thereof, those who are led by God, which a believer CAN usually tell.
Good. Then you can understand why I am comfortable with mainstream geology after studying it for several decades.
I understand that completely. Let's say we have two clashing sincerely held sources of authority for what we are doing here. I'm not giving up mine and all your attempts to undermine it are just annoying rabbit trails on a thread like this.
It's NOT an easy subject, contrary to what many YEC websites will suggest, and we can't really get into details on a discussion boar like this.
I don't think it's easy at all but for purposes of defending the Flood we have to stick to the broad picture.
Sometimes I disagree with other YECs, very often those who come to EvC for sure.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 969 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 5:01 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 978 of 1304 (732863)
07-11-2014 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 976 by Faith
07-11-2014 6:00 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Why should it take a great deal of time if there's tons of it suspended in the water that is rising over the land? Five months isn't enough?
Why would it be suspended in the water? Where did it come from? Why wouldn't it all settle out at once then, when we know that limestone has been periodically deposited at numerous times in geologic history?
And this is related to the formation of limestone strata how?
Because some limestones are coral reefs. Others are partially digested coral, as someone correctly reported earlier.
Amenable no doubt, but not necessarily NOT amenable to a shorter time period and unusual sedimentation rates.
Ah, excellent. You have a chance now to provide us with evidence that this has happened. Please do so.
Oh some of the reconstructions of what may have happened have more plausibility than others, and are not at all based on "what we don't know" as you put it but on what we extrapolate from what we do know to a situation we can only imagine.
So, I see. You are allowed to pick and choose...
But certainly it is true that you rely on what you don't know. This is clear from the lack of evidence in your posts. You are allowed to imagine things and make the real.
We're going the best we can with what God has told us, and we believe God over any scientists who contradict what He has written in really very clear language.
So God isn't giving you much data, eh? Makes things kind of difficult. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 976 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 6:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 6:59 PM edge has replied
 Message 993 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 2:01 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 979 of 1304 (732864)
07-11-2014 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 951 by Percy
07-11-2014 8:03 AM


Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
I would like to get back to this topic eventually if possible but right now I just want to ask: Would the Geological Time Scale ever have existed if the strata were not always found one on top of another in the order of evolution attributed to their fossil contents? The idea is absurd it seems to me.
The point about the Claron, or any layer in the Geo Column for that matter IS that it is found in the order of the time periods assigned to it. abe: ABOVE the "older" ones, BELOW any that are more recent. If it weren't for this physical ordering the very idea of the Geological Time Scale would never have occurred to anyone. /abe
I'll have to get back to this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 951 by Percy, posted 07-11-2014 8:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 981 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 8:39 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 980 of 1304 (732867)
07-11-2014 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 978 by edge
07-11-2014 6:33 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Why should it take a great deal of time if there's tons of it suspended in the water that is rising over the land? Five months isn't enough?
Why would it be suspended in the water?
Well, it must be if it forms those deposits off shore in the Walther's model. That's the idea isn't it, that those sediments that deposit in the order illustrated are carried in the water and settle out in turn according to their size? And the carbonates and foram ooze are there along with the rest of them. What else would one suppose but that they too are suspended in the water and settle out where their size dictates?.
Where did it come from?
Wherever it came from to settle out according to Walther's law wherever it happened to settle out. Why should this be a question at this point? If it exists in that model then it existed in the water and settled out where it settled out.
Why wouldn't it all settle out at once then, when we know that limestone has been periodically deposited at numerous times in geologic history?
Perhaps it did for the most part "all settle out at once" in the Flood conditions, wherever there was a lot of it suspended over the land. We have to explain the thick limestone strata and the Cliffs of Dover among other deposits all over the world after all.
I have a question about corals by the way: How much of the calcium carbonate in the strata could be attributed to crushed coral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 978 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 6:33 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 8:53 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 981 of 1304 (732873)
07-11-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 979 by Faith
07-11-2014 6:49 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
I would like to get back to this topic eventually if possible but right now I just want to ask: Would the Geological Time Scale ever have existed if the strata were not always found one on top of another in the order of evolution attributed to their fossil contents? The idea is absurd it seems to me.
Probably. There is enough overlap of strat columns that correlation is possible over huge areas. But that isn't what happened. As William Smith found, it was possible to predict both rock type and fossils from one area to another based on geologic mapping.
The point about the Claron, or any layer in the Geo Column for that matter IS that it is found in the order of the time periods assigned to it. abe: ABOVE the "older" ones, BELOW any that are more recent. If it weren't for this physical ordering the very idea of the Geological Time Scale would never have occurred to anyone. /abe
I'll have to get back to this.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The principle of superposition is pretty well established.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 979 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 6:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 983 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2014 9:10 PM edge has replied
 Message 984 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 9:49 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 982 of 1304 (732874)
07-11-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 980 by Faith
07-11-2014 6:59 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Well, it must be if it forms those deposits off shore in the Walther's model.
That doesn't answer the question. Where does the carbonate come from if it is suspended in the water?
That's the idea isn't it, that those sediments that deposit in the order illustrated are carried in the water and settle out in turn according to their size?
If the materials aren't there, it doesn't matter what Walther's Law says.
And the carbonates and foram ooze are there along with the rest of them.
Okay, show us the evidence that all of that carbonate was suspended at one point in time. That would be such a foram bloom that it would probably cause extinction on its own.
What else would one suppose but that they too are suspended in the water and settle out where their size dictates?.
The amount of carbonate would almost suggest a dilute cement slurry rather than a suspension of carbonate fossils.
Wherever it came from to settle out according to Walther's law wherever it happened to settle out.
Again, that does not answer the question. Where did the carbonate come from? You tell me where it settled, but where did it come from?
Why should this be a question at this point?
Because you just said that it settled out in some specific location. I'm asking where it came from.
If it exists in that model then it existed in the water and settled out where it settled out.
So, you are not going to answer the question. Okay.
Perhaps it did for the most part "all settle out at once" in the Flood conditions, wherever there was a lot of it suspended over the land.
"Suspended over the land?"
Whut?
How did it get there. All you are saying is that 'there was carbonate'.
We have to explain the thick limestone strata and the Cliffs of Dover among other deposits all over the world after all.
That's what I'm doing. Long periods of quiet sedimentation isolated from terrigenous contamination.
I have a question about corals by the way: How much of the calcium carbonate in the strata could be attributed to crushed coral?
I have no idea, but it is huge. Most limestone is extremely fine-grained, textureless calcium carbonate grains. I've read of significant contributions from the byproduct of coral-eating species. It's really pretty amazing to see the extent of carbonate sands on the continental shelves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 6:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 9:52 PM edge has replied
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 1:55 AM edge has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 983 of 1304 (732876)
07-11-2014 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by edge
07-11-2014 8:39 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
The principle of superposition is pretty well established.
I have a bumpersticker on the truck, "Archaeologists assume superposition."
We get some weird looks, and an occasional question as to, "What's that mean?"

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 8:39 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 988 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 10:31 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 984 of 1304 (732877)
07-11-2014 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 981 by edge
07-11-2014 8:39 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Probably. There is enough overlap of strat columns that correlation is possible over huge areas. But that isn't what happened. As William Smith found, it was possible to predict both rock type and fossils from one area to another based on geologic mapping.
Yes I love that map. I'd love to have a huge poster of it along with a poster of the GS-GC cross section I also love, to pin on my wall. See, I LIKE geology.
Anyway, what Smith's map shows is what is left of the strata from massive erosion of what was very probably the original stack miles deep. All in order, ascending from Precambrian through Holocene. Ascending, up the physical ladder. So that where an area is eroded away it exposes the lower strata, and the higher areas are what's left of the the higher strata, and it's all the same Geological Column just more intact in some places than others. There's no problem there, it's all the same geological column. The problem is when you have an entirely new deposition somewhere else entirely, say at the bottom of the English Channel perhaps, and you want to call that the next level up from the Holocene. "Oh, why is that a problem?" you are sure to ask, and all I can do is roll my eyes, sorry.
Edited by Faith, : Puhunktchoashun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 981 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 8:39 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 986 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 10:28 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 985 of 1304 (732878)
07-11-2014 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 982 by edge
07-11-2014 8:53 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Found a creationist page saying there are dead corals on the deep ocean floor. Yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 8:53 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 987 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 10:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 986 of 1304 (732879)
07-11-2014 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by Faith
07-11-2014 9:49 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
Yes I love that map. I'd love to have a huge poster of it along with a poster of the GS-GC cross section I also love, to pin on my wall. See, I LIKE geology.
Evidently. However, your training appears to be lacking.
Anyway, what Smith's map shows is what is left of the strata from massive erosion of what was very probably the original stack miles deep.[/qs] But they are all folded, aren't they?
All in order, ascending from Precambrian through Holocene.
I'm not sure that Great Britain has that much coverage, but this is moot.
Ascending, up the physical ladder. So that where an area is eroded away it exposes the lower strata, and the higher areas are what's left of the the higher strata, and it's all the same Geological Column just more intact in some places than others.[/qs] With certain limitations, sure. However, if uplift is sufficiently large, older rocks are exposed so that older rocks are actually physically higher.
There's no problem there, it's all the same geological column. The problem is when you have an entirely new deposition somewhere else entirely, say at the bottom of the English Channel perhaps, and you want to call that the next level up from the Holocene. "Oh, why is that a problem?" you are sure to ask, and all I can do is roll my eyes, sorry.
Erosion and deposition have been going on for billions of years. By the nature of the process they can't be at the same place at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 9:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 991 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 1:43 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 987 of 1304 (732880)
07-11-2014 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 985 by Faith
07-11-2014 9:52 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
Found a creationist page saying there are dead corals on the deep ocean floor. Yes?
Sure, but we still have coral reefs, do we not? A flood of the proportions you suggest would have killed off all coral reefs. If not the depth of water, then the turbidity would have made them extinct.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 988 of 1304 (732881)
07-11-2014 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 983 by Coyote
07-11-2014 9:10 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
I have a bumpersticker on the truck, "Archaeologists assume superposition."
Sometimes, I just have to pull rank and say that scientists are special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 983 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2014 9:10 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 990 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2014 12:26 AM edge has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 989 of 1304 (732882)
07-12-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
07-11-2014 4:44 PM


Re: Massive errosion and massive delta formation
I know that Edge replied twice to this message and that there has been a further chain of messages after that. But I'll reply independent of that, even if Edge has already said some of what I'm about to say.
OK, though I have a feeling if I used "basement rock" he'd object to that too, even if it's correct. I think I'll go with your original "solid rock." That's probably not safe either but at least it doesn't suggest something technical.
I think that both "basement rock" and "solid rock" can be nebulous terms. Kind of a "compared to what" thing. And while "basement rock" is probably also pretty "solid rock", a lot of above the "basement rock" can also be pretty solid.
I just don't see big rivers BECAUSE it's going on raining very hard everywhere, not just in the higher areas, and it's all running off the higher areas willy-nilly, most of it mudslides. I suppose small streams would run into big streams here and there but I can't see anything that organized remaining for long BECAUSE it keeps going on raining everywhere and breaking up everything, any river banks trying to form would be eroded away in the overflow before they could even get formed. It's all speculation though.
I'm a bit boggled about how to reply to this. The amount of flow in any drainage will get a lot larger, and the valleys of all the streams and rivers will get a lot larger. A real world example is the Minnesota River valley. Now it is a pretty big valley containing a relatively small river. Why? Because of the large flow drainage of Glacial Lake Agassiz. Kind of like the channeled scablands from Glacial Lake Missoula, but in a different geological ("bedrock") context.
OK to most of that but not sure why not limestone. If it's deposited anywhere according to the Walther's model, being present in the sea water, it should be present in THIS sea water too and deposit in its turn along with all the other sediments.
As I discussed in Message 889, Walther originally formulated his law from studying the sedimentation patterns of meandering rivers (another migrating environment). No limestone there. We've largely looked at transgressing sea models because Walter's Law is easier to understand in that context. A transgressive/regressive sea model is also much more relevant to "The Flood".
Anyway, to the reason for lots of clastic sediments but no limestones. It is conceivable to transport a lot of clastic material in, and then dump it at a location. But limestones (with very minor exceptions) are derived from the remains of animal hard parts (clam shells, coral, etc, etc). It is grown in place, not brought in as clastic material from elsewhere. And it takes a considerable amount of time to grow enough critters to form any thickness of limestone. So, at most, limestone deposition will be very minimal. Especially since animals won't be surviving very well in the turbid waters of your "Flood".
Afraid "sorting process" is clearer to me than "what you get when depositional environments shift" though I'd be happy to use that description if I could understand it. Anyway, thanks for being a big enough guy to say that Faith could ever get anything "basically correct."
Sorting processes happen in a given environment and sub-environments (all environments are part of a larger environment). In our seashore model we have the seashore environment, with the onshore, near shore, and further and further offshore sub-environments. As long as this environment is stable at a given location, you get the same variety of sediment at each sub-environment.
But if the environment shifts in a sea transgression, then the sand, silt, clay, limestone, and whatever etc. deposition locations also shift. Thus you can end up with and see, in a vertical column, limestone on top of shale (clay), on top of siltstone, on top of sandstone. The bottom to top sequence is the same as the shoreline to deep water sequence. That is Walther's Law. For deposition from a receding (regressive) sea (environmental shift in the opposite direction), the vertical sequence would be the opposite (Sandstone on top, limestone on the bottom). But that still relates to Walther's Law.
Now "in theory", what we should see is a regressive sequence (the sea has gone out) on top of a transgressive sequence. But it is my understanding that regressive deposits tend to be poorly preserved. This is because what had been a depositional environment becomes an erosional environment. Who knows, maybe the erosional environment would also wipe out what had been the transgressive deposits.
Anyway, thanks for being a big enough guy to say that Faith could ever get anything "basically correct."
I said "...basically correct. But...". That could have been "...essentially correct. But..." or "...correct. But...". It all means the same - There's that "But".
Minnemooseus writes:
But I think that the reworks sediments would form a relatively thin veneer on top of a much thicker heterogeneous clay/silt/sand/gravel/boulder horizon.
This I don't get. If the sea water creates layers then it should layer all this too.
This was speculation on my part, and I don't really feel up to going further into it now. But if indeed all the deltaic deposits were indeed reworked by the sea transgression/regression, what we would see is some variation of a single transgressive/regressive package. Which we don't.
But the way things are today IS that we have extremely thick deposits of strata in many places and the clear indication that those existed in other places too but were eroded down to much less. Some of the strata span entire continents in very thick slabs. I don't get what you mean about not having enough. And we don't know how much sediment made up the original land mass, all we can do is extrapolate from what we have now anyway. If a depth of three miles of strata were originally laid down on the rock base of the continents, and a great deal of that washed into the sea, that should be enough sediment for my scenario.
We are exploring the "what if "The Flood" happened starting tomorrow" scenario. How much of that sediment pile would have eroded is a big question. Besides, remember that the bulk of all that sediment is below the current sea level and thus wouldn't be eroded. And if we take the current state of affairs as being the "pre-Flood" "geologic column", it raises the question "how did all that pre-Flood sediment get deposited?" Which maybe brings up a whole "maybe worthy of it's own topic" question - What was the YEC pre-Flood "geologic column".
Minnemooseus writes:
Besides, you’d only get a single transgressive/regressive sequence, not the multiple that we can see in the geologic records (geologic column).
OK. That's something ponder. If the multiple is correctly interpreted.
Ponder away, oh mighty one. If you are willing to buy into Walther's Law, then multiple is the interpretation.
Again I don't get why not limestone since it normally gets laid down as part of the Walther's sequence simply because it's in the oceans. ...
I think I covered this above.
And you all created this same sort of scenario on that old thread you linked too, which was fun to read because it's all exactly the same sort of speculation creationists do, though of course we're going to speculate in the direction of explaining "what we actually see" by it and you aren't. Your speculations don't match up with what we actually see, but creationists' do. As long as it's all speculation, which it is, I don't see that yours have a better claim than ours.
Boggled.
I'd be a lot more troubled by any scenario that clashes with what God has revealed than anything that clashes with what mere human beings come up with, no matter how educated or sincere.
Well, there are two versions of the creation story. One is the print of the Bible and the other can be seen by looking at the creation itself (the worldly evidence). I think the creation itself has a lot more information, and it doesn't agree with your Bible version. Or something like that.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : "No" into "Now". I was too fried to do a final proofread when I posted this. Probably missed something else also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 964 by Faith, posted 07-11-2014 4:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 994 by Faith, posted 07-12-2014 2:34 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 1013 by edge, posted 07-12-2014 12:23 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 990 of 1304 (732883)
07-12-2014 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 988 by edge
07-11-2014 10:31 PM


Re: Geological Time Scale REQUIRES ascent to make sense
I have a bumpersticker on the truck, "Archaeologists assume superposition."
Sometimes, I just have to pull rank and say that scientists are special.
I also have a coffee mug that says, "My life is in ruins."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 988 by edge, posted 07-11-2014 10:31 PM edge has 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