|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fountains of the deep, new evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 153 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined:
|
This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics. If you have a pocket full of coins, the smaller coins end up down the bottom. But this is completely wrong. The largest size of material that can be moved by flowing water is proportional to the sixth power of the speed; double the speed of the flow, and you multiply the size of the largest object that can be moved by 32. As the waters of a flood decelerate, first boulders and cobbles and pebbles settle out, and then finer sediments like gravel, sand, silt and clay. Did you actually try the experiment with a pocket-full of coins?
It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. Again, this is simply wrong; young sedimentary rocks (Pliocene and Pleistocene) contain small mollusc shells, and the bones of the great dinosaurs are found in Mesozoic rocks, in the middle of the geological column and far below the mammoths. Anyway, if your argument were true, we should expect to find fossil birds and small mammals in the oldest rocks.
The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time. There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years. I can well believe that you find science boring, as you said in another thread. If you had found it interesting, you would have gone to the trouble to check your facts (for example, by reading some text-books), and would not have written such inaccurate stuff as this. What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science. Edited by Astrophile, : Expansion of point in last paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4441 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Colbard writes: One of these days I may feel up to presenting global flood dynamics in a new thread. Boy, I can hardly wait for that. This science shit is so boring. I guess you will mostly teach us about how there was a lot of water. More water than ever before. And it was special water that did not act like normal water, because it was a global flood. There was a lot of love in this water, so it didn't carry stuff like rocks and dirt and dead things like water does today. That's why the biggest heaviest stuff is at the top of all the layers and the smallest stuff is at the bottom. If it wasn't so boring, anyone could go look at the rocks anywhere and see that this is true. Please, please please start a thread teaching us about global flood dynamics, gosh it sounds so sciencey.Teach us Obi Wan. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous. It's a good analogy for the flood layers. Do you seriously believe that every leaf came from one gigantic tree? If not, your flood evidence is completely worthless. It points to many floods, not one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Astrophile writes: What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science. Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes: Boy, I can hardly wait for that. This science shit is so boring. You won't need to be there, you've already had your thrill just then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes: Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous. Yes, I know what you were saying, it still is a simple and effective way to get your point across. As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age.Yes, the earth would present evidence for multi floods, and many old lakes and swamps that have disappeared over the centuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Astrophile writes: But this is completely wrong. The largest size of material that can be moved by flowing water is proportional to the sixth power of the speed; double the speed of the flow, and you multiply the size of the largest object that can be moved by 32. As the waters of a flood decelerate, first boulders and cobbles and pebbles settle out, and then finer sediments like gravel, sand, silt and clay. And the finer particles don't find their way down past and below the larger boulders and rocks? The flood did not produce one continuous layer, but hundreds of layers in most instances. Your evolutionary models show the big stuff on top, the little things at the bottom. That is a wished model, hardly the general case.We find shells mixed in with mammoths. No millions of years in between.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too. As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age. But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers. Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3417 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes: Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too.But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers. Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that No, creationists don't always teach the Bible, but water it down, pardon the pun, by leaning on 'science so named.' You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic. As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static.But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This one was funny:
Colbard writes: Actually, geology is very dynamic. Lots and lots of evidence for sudden changes in geology. None of them involve magic, though.
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
No, science has no problem with sudden changes. Volcanic eruptions are an excellent example, one that floodists ignore. There are many "igneous adventures" interspersed with the many floods in the geological record. It is just not possible to explain all of the sudden changes with one event.
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic. Colbard writes:
Nobody says the change rates are static but they do stay within certain ranges. You want to extrapolate so far outside the known possible ranges that you're not connected to reality any more.
As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static. Colbard writes:
The biggest storms and the biggest earthquakes you can imagine are miniscule on the world geographic scale and the geologic time scale. Storms and earthquakes are tiny local events. You can't just scale them up.
But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions. Colbard writes:
I know. They have no foundation in the Bible and no foundation in science.
No, creationists don't always teach the Bible....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1015 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined:
|
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.
Oh my. The display of such ignorance by a Creationist on how scientific models are constructed, implemented, and yes, revised, is no real surprise anymore, but the hubris required to state such nonsense never ceases to amaze me. If science was indeed static, it would never progress and we'd all still be in the stone age. You should take a little time to think about what you're professing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Where did flood waters recede to?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.
For disavowing "creation science" as much as you do, you still depend almost entirely on what they say. Like the entire confusion over what "catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" were and are. As I wrote back in 1990 on CompuServe (reposted at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/geology.html) -- IOW, these are things that we have known for a very long time:
. . . But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.quote: Similarly, the meaning of "uniformitarianism" has changed since the early 1800's (imagine that!). Now it means that the same natural processes and physical laws have been in operation since the formation of the earth and for billions of years before that. It does not in any manner require that no sudden catastrophic events could have ever occurred, nor did it mean that in its prior early-1800's sense.
As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" ...
Where? Because all that Google can find for that quote is your very own Message 99. Cite your source! Of course, we all know that Colbard has moved on to plague other fora with his foolishness. But just in case he checks back in:
Colbard. Before you criticize or berate science for something, first learn something about science! As I have told you repeatedly, ignorance does not work! We know that all too well. How do we knew that so well? Because we have tried it far too many times! And continue to try it! You want your children to oppose evolution? Is the solution ignorance, to keep them from ever learning anything about evolution? No! The solution is to have them learn everything they possibly can about evolution so that they will know all of its weaknesses. You want your children to oppose science? Is the solution ignorance, to keep them from learning what science is and how it works and what it actually teaches? No! You want them to learn everything they possibly can about science so as to know all of its weaknesses. Have you learned nothing from Scripture (albeit the Chinese variety):
quote: We have this conceit that creationists are incapable of learning. That is not true. Creationists can indeed learn; they just simply learn the wrong lessons. For example, in the preface of his most useful book, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple tells of his first encounter with "creation science" and motivation for writing his book, which was the 1975 visit and presentation to the US Geological Survey (USGS) at Menlo Park by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) luminaries and co-creators of "creation science", Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish. The overwhelming feedback that Gish and Morris received were the innumerable corrections of their abysmal misunderstanding of thermodynamics. From that, did the creationists learn that there were problems with their understanding of thermodynamics that needed to be corrected? No, what they learned was to never ever again present their claims to an audience that had any understanding of the science that they were zealously misrepresenting. Creationists are indeed capable of learning from their mistakes, but they invariably learn the wrong lessons. Colbard has learned from his time here. And has turned yet again towards the Dark Side of the Farce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Astrophile Member (Idle past 153 days) Posts: 92 From: United Kingdom Joined: |
Colbard writes: Astrophile writes:
Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science. What is the point of this reply? It doesn't answer the question implied by my Message 91; in fact, it appears to have no relation to that question. Still, in an attempt to answer your question, no, I don't expect you to feel sorry for people who have devoted their whole lives to science. Why should you feel sorry for them?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024