Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 1:06 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, PaulK, PsychMJC, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,058 Year: 7,094/19,786 Month: 1,635/1,581 Week: 14/443 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
71NextFF
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 436 of 1053 (752121)
03-08-2015 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by RAZD
03-08-2015 4:22 PM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
Could you please boil down your voluminous posts to the essential point, whether silt could ride on the flood waters or not?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2015 4:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2015 9:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 437 of 1053 (752122)
03-08-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 4:17 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Well, it was really none of my business anyway but thanks for the answer. I have a bigger problem with the "Christians" who come here to argue with me rather than support me than with the antiChristians.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 4:17 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30943
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 438 of 1053 (752126)
03-08-2015 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
03-08-2015 7:48 PM


Re: "Evidence" -- ha!
Well, actually Faith it is NOT a matter of interpretation.

We can determine whether or not two rock samples (or teeth or trees or people) came from the same area by comparing their composition in detail. It is a science called chemistry.

We know that sand is an end product and how it is produced, for example by weathering rocks to produce the type sand that is the result of mountains being eroded.

We can know how long it takes by observing the processes as it goes on today.

We can know that 40 days and 40 nights of rain cannot weather much rock away or make much sand since we can directly see what tens of thousands of years of 24 hour a day racing water does to granite. Remember the picture I posted that showed the boulders sitting at the base of Niagara Falls.

Just as with the Green River varves, the salt beds, the White Cliffs of Dover, there is and has never been a single model or method that can explain their existence in only 6000 much less 4300 years. There is no model or method that could wear down the Appalachians in only 6000 years.

YEC and Creationism are simply DeadOnArrival.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 439 of 1053 (752128)
03-08-2015 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
03-08-2015 1:44 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
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.

While you could argue this for science in the 21st century, it's not true of the birth of modern science in the 17th century. Bacon, Kepler, and Galileo, were all devout theists. As the early scientific enterprise grew, the early scientists (or "virtuosi" in the parlance of 17th century England) tended to be not only theists, but Christians. And not only Christians, but Protestants. And not only Protestants, but Puritans, with theological views similar to those that you yourself hold. As Ian Barbour has written (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48):
quote:
“Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits."

As Whitehead and others have argued, it was the Christian (especially Puritan) conception of God's unchanging character and God's providence that motivated these early scientists to study God's creation to try to uncover the truths which He had revealed there.

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

But it is the hard sciences (geology, physics, astrophysics) which provide the strongest support for an old earth and an old universe!

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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:38 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 440 of 1053 (752129)
03-08-2015 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 8:24 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
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.

While you could argue this for science in the 21st century, it's not true of the birth of modern science in the 17th century. Bacon, Kepler, and Galileo, were all devout theists. As the early scientific enterprise grew, the early scientists (or "virtuosi" in the parlance of 17th century England) tended to be not only theists, but Christians. And not only Christians, but Protestants. And not only Protestants, but Puritans, with theological views similar to those that you yourself hold.

Yes, I know. The development of science in the west could be attributed entirely to Bible-believing Christians, due to the Biblical presentation of a law-giving God and a lawful Nature, which wasn't the way the world was conceived by the pagans. The conception of law made it possible to expect to understand Nature. And that was a very productive idea for the most part, until Hutton and Darwin started making claims about the untestable past.

As Ian Barbour has written (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48):

quote:
“Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits."

As Whitehead and others have argued, it was the Christian (especially Puritan) conception of God's unchanging character and God's providence that motivated these early scientists to study God's creation to try to uncover the truths which He had revealed there.

Absolutely. But that's REAL science. Sorry, but evolution and old earth geology are NOT real science.

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

But it is the hard sciences (geology, physics, astrophysics) which provide the strongest support for an old earth and an old universe!

If it contradicts the Bible, and it does, it's not science. It is far more dangerous to contradict God's word than it is to contradict science. Nature and the Bible must agree, as you said, but what human beings think about Nature is subject to error. And when you get into the sciences of the past you are relying mostly on mere interpretation, that is nothing but fallible human ponderings, not real science, not testable, not replicable, just mental constructs.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 8:24 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 441 of 1053 (752130)
03-08-2015 8:50 PM


Though I *may* disagree with many of their spiritual conclusions (big deal), I have great respect for scientists like kbertsche, Francis Collins, and countless other religious scientists. I respect them because while in spiritual matters they follow their heart (or whatever explanation works for them), in matters of science they follow the evidence.

One cannot practice science if in the scientific matter in question you have a sacred cow (ANY sacred cow). If your field is dendrochronology and you insist that trees always and without fail produce one single ring per year and spend your time hand waving away the evidence to the contrary, you aren't doing science, you're doing pseudoscience. The difference between the answer of Nye and the answer of Ham on what would change their minds regarding evolution made this starkly clear. Bill can do, judge and rationally comment on earth science - Ken can't. It's simply a matter of the definition and integrity of science.

My curriculum is not anti-creation, it's anti-YEC and anti-Noahic flood - something undoubtedly false if one is willing to follow the evidence. If one has the position that evidence contrary to their own pet interpretation of a text they deem holy must necessarily be flawed or ignored or hand waved away through ad hoc explanations, they are not using a scientific approach. One does not get to make up one's own definition of 'science' and then try to palm it off as real science.

Asking nicely - biblical pseudoscience is off topic on this thread. Please.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:53 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 442 of 1053 (752131)
03-08-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by ThinAirDesigns
03-08-2015 8:50 PM


The only "sacred cow" here IS science. If people stop addressing me on this thread, I'll leave. I have no interest in being here except to answer the endless garbage that's thrown at me.

To be "anti YEC" is to be anti Biblical which is to be anti Christian which is to be anti God which is to be anti Truth.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 8:50 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 9:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 443 of 1053 (752132)
03-08-2015 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Faith
03-08-2015 8:38 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Faith writes:

If it contradicts the Bible, and it does, it's not science.

That's a theological position. Please take your theological position, observations and theories to a thread whose topic allows it.

Thanks
JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(4)
Message 444 of 1053 (752133)
03-08-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Faith
03-08-2015 8:53 PM


Faith writes:

The only "sacred cow" here IS science. If people stop addressing me on this thread, I'll leave. I have no interest in being here except to answer the endless garbage that's thrown at me.

To be "anti YEC" is to be anti Biblical which is to be anti Christian which is to be anti God which is to be anti Truth.

I disengaged from you pages ago and am I am only interacting with you at this time to highlight your off topic statements to the moderators.

That "endless garbage" you think is being thrown is actual science, backed up by evidence, while your assertions are by your own admission based on something completely different.

Please take your biblical pseudoscience to a thread where such is appropriate. Yes, science IS the holy cow on this thread. Please respect that.

Thanks.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 8:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4578
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 445 of 1053 (752134)
03-08-2015 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by Faith
03-08-2015 7:56 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
And now more mystification from edge.

Ah... still nothing of subtance, just complaints.

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.

Not really. Since the higher-grade metamorphic rocks are present at the surface, it is reasonable to assume that they were actually once at a much greater depth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:56 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4578
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 446 of 1053 (752137)
03-08-2015 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
03-08-2015 7:48 PM


Re: "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.

Well, then, you were wrong. You said that it was due to the type of mountain range.

Now it has to do with the rate of erosion.

And actually, I agree. Higher mountain ranges are subject to higher rates of erosion. When the Himalayas are the same elevation as the Appalachians, they will be eroding at a similar rate.

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Have you seen cross-sections of the southern Appalachians?

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:

Yes, it would be an interpretation of the evidence.

What have you got?

Oh, that's right. If we disagree with you we are crazy.

That makes sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 447 of 1053 (752139)
03-08-2015 9:45 PM


OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION NEW LOCATION
I've started a thread for the off topic discussion HERE

Please move posts addressed to me over there. Thanks.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 9:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 448 of 1053 (752140)
03-08-2015 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by Faith
03-08-2015 9:45 PM


Re: OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION NEW LOCATION
Faith writes:

I've started a thread for the off topic discussion

Much appreciated and respect given for the move.

JB


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 9:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 449 of 1053 (752149)
03-09-2015 9:45 AM


ThinAirDesigns writes:

My curriculum is not anti-creation, it's anti-YEC and anti-Noahic flood

Because of an off thread conversation I just had, I realized that I used one of the terms above in a way that does not accurately reflect my position. If the Noahic flood is interpreted as a regional event, I have no issue whatsoever with the story. It's the world-wide aspect of it that doesn't fit the evidence.

I will try in the future to make sure I'm more clear.

Thanks
JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 450 of 1053 (752151)
03-09-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by Faith
03-08-2015 7:58 PM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
okaaay step by step ...

you please boil down your voluminous posts to the essential point, whether silt could ride on the flood waters or not?

Air born silt can land and float on water due to surface tension, not because of any relative buoyancy of the particles.

Until the first wave, spray or rain drop lands on it.

Then it becomes suspended in the water.

Silt suspended in water settles only if the water is not turbulent, and then only very slowly ... 10,000 times slower than a 10mm (~3/8") diameter pebble (smaller than a marble).

Any flow of water that keeps a 10mm diameter pebble in suspension will pick up (erode) any silt resting on the bottom.

Ergo you need an extended period of tranquility to form a layer of silt deposition on a surface ... if formed in the water.

An extended period of time without any larger particles in the water column over the silt layer or they would be deposited before the silt formed a layer.

Enjoy

ThinAirDesigns: possible experiment: take marbles to a pool and time how long it takes for them to reach the bottom. You can get them in various sizes -- 1/2", 9/16", 5/8", 3/4", 1" ... http://glassmarbles.com/size.htm

These would be the same density, with nice smooth spherical surfaces, you could weigh them and then calculate the density. You should get a nice distribution of time vs size from dropping them in the deep end of a swimming pool.


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 436 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 7:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-09-2015 10:28 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
3132
...
71NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019