Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 421 of 1053 (752090)
03-08-2015 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
03-08-2015 12:42 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
There are creationists who are scientists who may do this rethinking, but otherwise we have to look for ways to reconcile it with the time factor and other information the Bible gives us.
Very funny. Particularly after denying operating in exactly this way. Unfortunately none of the explanations you come up with can withstand the slightest scientific scrutiny. That why Creation Science is 10% assertion and 90% denial.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 12:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 422 of 1053 (752091)
03-08-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
03-07-2015 2:32 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Maybe Creation Science can predict and explain a lot of things I'm not personally able to do since I'm not a scientist.
Feel free to quote someone who knows better. But the truth is that Creation Science is purely about explaining away real science. Real science dictates what creationists have to make up stories about.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 03-07-2015 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 423 of 1053 (752093)
03-08-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
03-08-2015 12:42 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
But creationists have a different task whether you approve of it or not. Our job IS to reconcile scientific fact with the Bible. You may be content to let science destroy the Bible, some of us aren't. I'm no scientist but I'm not willing to let unbelievers trash God's word. That doesn't mean we should ever tolerate misrepresentations of actual facts, it just means we have to discover how the actual facts work into the Biblical framework we are given. This is the position that science has put us in. If we aren't doing science according to Hoyle, who cares?
As you know, I am both a scientist and a (old earth) creationist. I believe that God is the author of both nature and Scripture and that He reveals truth through both means (Ps. 19). Since God is the author of both, nature and Scripture must completely agree. I see no need to fear or oppose truth in either realm.
When I see a disagreement between science and any particular interpretation of Scripture, at least one of the interpretations (of nature or Scripture) must be wrong, so I allow myself to question BOTH interpretations. Sometimes I allow science to change my interpretation of the Bible (but not to "destroy the Bible"). Sometimes I allow Scripture to change my interpretation of nature.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 12:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 1:44 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 424 of 1053 (752094)
03-08-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by jar
03-08-2015 1:28 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
That's less evidence than interpretation, jar. Give me some actual evidence please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 425 of 1053 (752095)
03-08-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by ThinAirDesigns
03-07-2015 7:26 PM


Re: Frustration with the web of YEC lies
In my dealings so far with my YEC family I have been able to score valuable points in two ways:
1: Show that the YEC sites and speakers regularly/usually/overwhelmingly quote mine in a blatantly dishonest manner.
Probably the best tactic of all. In fact, it is the easily discernible lies that are the reason why many Christians despise lying ass Creation Science.
hey don't understand the terminology in science papers and so they simply look for a sentence that sounds like it can be used as a weapon against OE and lift it off the page and swing it around like it's a sharp sword.
There aren't any creationists here anymore who bother doing any substantial research, but many of the ones who have done so have no shame at being caught at quote mining. The more brazen insist that it is not their job to vet what they post.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-07-2015 7:26 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 426 of 1053 (752096)
03-08-2015 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 1:40 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Since God is the author of both, nature and Scripture must completely agree. I see no need to fear or oppose truth in either realm.
Theoretically that is quite true. The problem is that science is a bunch of theories concocted by fallen humanity who could not care less whether they agree with the Bible or not. That's why creationists do what they do.
ABE: This is not a problem with the hard sciences, but only with the sciences of the past which are the ones that seriously impinge on the Bible. Old Earthism and Evolutionism. /ABE
When I see a disagreement between science and any particular interpretation of Scripture, at least one of the interpretations (of nature or Scripture) must be wrong, so I allow myself to question BOTH interpretations. Sometimes I allow science to change my interpretation of the Bible (but not to "destroy the Bible"). Sometimes I allow Scripture to change my interpretation of nature.
I have yet to see any reinterpretation of the Bible to accommodate science that is not just a trashing of the Bible. I cannot find the Old Earth in the Bible except by completely violating it.
Do you avoid persecution by taking the stance you do?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 1:40 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 431 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 3:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 432 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 4:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 439 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 8:24 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 427 of 1053 (752097)
03-08-2015 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
03-08-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Do you avoid persecution by taking the stance you do?
Faith, do you feel you are persecuted for your beliefs? Do you find the disagreement and ridicule your beliefs garner here to be persecution given your voluntary participation?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34120
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 428 of 1053 (752098)
03-08-2015 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
03-08-2015 1:41 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
LOL
Do you know what evidence is?
Do the White Cliffs of Dover exist? Is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?
Do the Green River varves exist? Is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?
Since the composition of the Scottish Highlands, Appalachians and Little Atlas mountains is the same is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain those facts?
If we find sands formed by weathering of the Appalachians is there a Creationist or YEC method or model to explain their existence?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 429 of 1053 (752106)
03-08-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
03-08-2015 12:31 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
Then there should be evidence of their former height.
Actually, there is from several lines of evidence.
Metamorphic minerals suggest that something more than 2 km of rock have been eroded from the current level exposed in the Appalachians. This diagram shows several series of regional metamorphism in the continental setting, to which the Appalachians would have been subjected. Note the depth (pressure) values by the time one gets to granulite grades of metamorphism.
Remember we are dealing with continental crust which is on the order of tens of kilometers thick, but we are also stacking two continental sequences, one over the other, so thicknesses can loom quite large.
Another line of evidence is the immense quantity of eroded material that was transported west to form the great sandstone deposits of the western US.
Here is a quote from Wiki:
The immense region involved in the continental collision, the vast temporal length of the orogeny and the thickness of the pile of sediments and igneous rocks known to have been involved are evidence that at the peak of the mountain-building process, the Appalachians likely once reached elevations similar to those of the Alps and the Rocky Mountains before they were eroded.[4][5]
Alleghanian orogeny - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 12:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:56 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 430 of 1053 (752107)
03-08-2015 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by jar
03-08-2015 1:28 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
We have markers left where glaciers wore away at them really recently, just 20,000 years ago or so.
We have sands from the Appalachians found many hundreds of miles away.
We have the angles of the stumps that are left.
We have the evidence of the climate across Pangaea over 400 million years ago.
We have the fact that parts (exactly the same materials and composition) were created in the same event that produced the Little Atlas mountains (now in Africa) and also parts of the Scottish highlands.
We have the evidence that they were not created in just one single event but rather a series of clollisions that pushed ocean floors up into mountains.
But the Appalachians are just one of the thousands and thousands, millions even, examples that prove the Earth is NOT 6000 years old and that None of the Biblical Floods actually happened.
This is all good stuff and it can be backed up.
One interesting find I had today is that there is some evidence that the Appalachians were so high and long as to have influenced global climate, possibly initiating an ice age and an extinction event. If there is interest, I'm sure we can track down the reference again.
(ETA: I just saw your previous post to this effect. Sorry.)
Another underrated feature is the amount of sand found in the Mezozoic of the Western US. Provenance studies show that much of it was derived from erosion of the Appalachians. That would mean over a thousand miles of transport by a transcontinental river system.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we are being America-centric here. The Appalachians are part of a near-global series of mountain-building events stretching across northern Europe into the the Baltics and Eastern Europe. This was a major event in the history of the earth.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:28 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 431 of 1053 (752108)
03-08-2015 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
03-08-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Theoretically that is quite true. The problem is that science is a bunch of theories concocted by fallen humanity who could not care less whether they agree with the Bible or not. That's why creationists do what they do.
So... creationists are not fallen?
Their interpretation of the bible is infallible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2238 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 432 of 1053 (752110)
03-08-2015 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
03-08-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
I have yet to see any reinterpretation of the Bible to accommodate science that is not just a trashing of the Bible. I cannot find the Old Earth in the Bible except by completely violating it.
Do you avoid persecution by taking the stance you do?
No, I don't avoid persecution, but I am persecuted for different reasons than you are.
The "militant YECs" strongly disagree with me and accuse me of compromising Scripture. The "militant atheists" strongly disagree with my views on God, Jesus, Scripture, God's creation, etc. They oppose Christians of all varieties, of course. At least they oppose me for the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, not for secondary issues such as the timing or mechanism of creation.
I get very little, if any, persecution from scientific colleagues who know me, even though most of them are atheists or agnostics. They are more puzzled by my views than antagonistic to them. They respect me as a scientist but can't understand how I can be so firmly convinced of God's existence and can commit my life to Him.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 1:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:00 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 433 of 1053 (752111)
03-08-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Faith
03-08-2015 11:51 AM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
RAZD, I can't use all that information. ...
You do -- it is simple and it suggests things you can test in your back-yard or apartment.
There is a vast range in settling velocities between gravel and silt/clays by several orders of magnitude -- seconds for gravel, days for silts.
You need to understand this for your mechanisms to have a hope of explaining the objective empirical evidence, not just of the Grand Canyon but of the Green River Varves.
You have a lot of different deposition processes that a single explanation does not cover.
... . I simply wanted to find out if silt could be carried on water to a place of deposition, and whether it is suspended or floats apparently it can be. ...
(1) Your source says IN water -- ie suspended in the water -- not ON the water.
(2) Silt can be held by surface tension in CALM water. Once a wave rolls over it the silt is then in suspension IN the water.
This is the trouble with giving you a small piece of information, you make a mountain out of it ... now it appears you envisage whole rafts of silt sailing over the ocean all around the world ...
The curious thing is that above and below the iridium layer are rocks that are not in a world wide distribution pattern.
Ocean water isn't "running" water but it is moving water and it would have been saturated with sediments and dead things as well.
Again, the size and density of things you envisage being carried means a fast turbulent current ... one that does NOT allow small particles to settle out in to layers of fine materials..
You either carry the big particles OR you let the small particles settle, you cannot have both happening at once.
If you wash over a fresh silt deposit with one full of rocks and gravel, the velocity necessary to carry those particles would mean that the silt would be picked back up and put back in suspension.
RAZD, I can't use all that information. ...
Correction: you WON'T use it, you will avoid it like the plague as long as possible. Sadly, for you, the physics of particulate behavior in water won't change by being ignored, and the only one you fool is yourself.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 400 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 11:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 434 of 1053 (752119)
03-08-2015 7:48 PM


"Evidence" -- ha!
Despite the information about the Appalachians coming from jar and edge it seems to me my original answer to the question about the difference in the appearance of age wasn't wrong: it's due to the different structure and the different rates of erosion. From all the diagrams I've seen the folds of the Alps ARE steeper than the Appalachians. And accordion type folds just are subject to more erosion than steeply upthrust mountains like the Rockies, granite or no granite.
As for the "evidence" given by jar that the Appalachians were originally much higher than the Alps, as I already said most of it isn't evidence but interpretation:
We have markers left where glaciers wore away at them really recently, just 20,000 years ago or so.
The 20,000 years is of course interpretation. I don't have a problem with the evidence for glaciers however, even though "markers" is pretty vague. And how this proves that the Appalachians used to be higher than the Alps is beyond me anyway.
We have sands from the Appalachians found many hundreds of miles away.
Sands FROM the Appalachians? How do you know they are FROM the Appalachians rather than simply the same sands in both places? And this proves what?
We have the angles of the stumps that are left.
What's a "stump" and how does it prove the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps?
We have the evidence of the climate across Pangaea over 400 million years ago.
Interpretation, of what "evidence" I have no idea. You obviously don't know what evidence is. And how does it prove that the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps?
We have the fact that parts (exactly the same materials and composition) were created in the same event that produced the Little Atlas mountains (now in Africa) and also parts of the Scottish highlands.
Also not evidence but interpretation, of what evidence there is no hint, you just call the interpretation "fact" obviously without the slightest idea of what evidence would be. And again, no hint as to how this would prove that the Appalachians were ever higher than the Alps anyway.
We have the evidence that they were not created in just one single event but rather a series of clollisions that pushed ocean floors up into mountains.
But of course you do not give the actual evidence of such collisions or separate events, just your interpretation of this supposed evidence which you aren't describing. You really don't know what evidence is, do you? And how any of this would show that the Appalachians were evder higher than the Alps is still a puzzle.
But the Appalachians are just one of the thousands and thousands, millions even, examples that prove the Earth is NOT 6000 years old and that None of the Biblical Floods actually happened.
But all that evidence which you haven't even bothered to describe is open to very different interpretations than yours and no doubt proves nothing of the sort.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 8:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 446 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 9:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 435 of 1053 (752120)
03-08-2015 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by edge
03-08-2015 3:09 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
And now more mystification from edge.
Metamorphic minerals suggest that something more than 2 km of rock have been eroded from the current level exposed in the Appalachians.
Oh, and how does it suggest that?
This diagram shows several series of regional metamorphism in the continental setting, to which the Appalachians would have been subjected. Note the depth (pressure) values by the time one gets to granulite grades of metamorphism.
Properly speaking that's not a diagram, it's a chart and I have no idea what it purports to show with all its categories of rock types. An actual diagram of the mountain structures involved would possibly be more edifying but I know you aren't really interested in communicating anything anyway. You love to mystify and obfuscate and bully creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 3:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 9:15 PM Faith 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