Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 11:41 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,245 Year: 5,282/19,786 Month: 1,404/873 Week: 300/460 Day: 52/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
11Next
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 61 of 155 (752269)
03-09-2015 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
03-09-2015 8:20 PM


Good grief, of COURSE I'm "mak ing stuff up," that's ALL anyone can do with the one-time event of the long-past Flood.

Well no, some people are smart enough to study the evidence and come up with scientific explanations for phenomenon in the long-past.

They try to form a theory that fits the evidence, and then they test it and test it and test it.

You, on the other hand, try to find evidence that fits your theory, and then you fantasize and fantasize and fantasize.

You might as well be talking about super heroes.

It's all I do and it's all the Flood debunkers do too. "Oh this that or the other physical fact "proves" there couldn't have been such a Flood." Same way I work, only I'm looking for ways it COULD work and they aren't and just about all the scenarios the debunkers have in mind are totally inadequate to what the reality must have been, all superficial straw man stuff.

Scientifically minded people realize that the best merits of a theory are when its able to stand up against falsification tests. Only after lots of testing and we learn that we cannot figure out any way to actually falsify the theory, does it start to get any serious consideration from anybody.

That's why your Flood ideas will never get respect, like my theories on Batman and Darth Vader, if they're not just downright impossible, then they are not falsifiable.

Nobody is impressed by your ability to make stuff up.

But as far as method goes, for both sides it's a matter of imagining the physical situation as plausibly as possible.

Oh, I suppose that you just fail to realize that your ideas are in no way plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 8:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2067
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 62 of 155 (752270)
03-09-2015 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by herebedragons
03-09-2015 4:20 PM


Re: say what?
Does that make sense or do I need to explain more of what I mean?

Yep, it makes sense. The stories teach lessons and explain what primitive people thought about the world and the supernatural. But the stories of Genesis cannot be used to understand the history of the Universe or the planet earth or of life. The conclusions of scientific inquiry about the Universe give us an understanding far beyond anything that was written by primitive bronze age people thousands of years ago.

I am just continually amazed that so many people today, surrounded by our vast accumulation of knowledge and technology would reject the knowledge in favor of bronze age mythology.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by herebedragons, posted 03-09-2015 4:20 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 63 of 155 (752272)
03-09-2015 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
03-09-2015 8:20 PM


why?
Faith writes:

Good grief, of COURSE I'm "making stuff up," that's ALL anyone can do with the one-time event of the long-past Flood.

Why Faith? Why can't you test and examine one-time event of the long ago past?

Is it some magic event that does not leave evidence?

Faith writes:

Same way I work, only I'm looking for ways it COULD work and they aren't and just about all the scenarios the debunkers have in mind are totally inadequate to what the reality must have been, all superficial straw man stuff.

Why Faith.

How does water falling over Niagara Falls for tens of thousands of years wear granite differently than rain falling for 40 days and 40 nights?

How are waves today different than waves during the Biblical floods?

How are currents today different than during the Biblical Floods?

If there was some tsunami why is there no evidence of that event?

What is the model, mechanism or method to produce the chalk layers that became White Cliffs of Dover in only 6000 years?

What is the model, mechanism or method to produce over six million alternating light and then dark layers in only 6000 years?

What is the model, mechanism or method to produce the layers of salt hundreds of feet think and then bury those beds tens of thousands of feet deep in only 6000 years?

It really is simple Faith. All you need to to present the model, method or mechanism to explain the reality of the facts found today.

Edited by jar, : even +t appalin spallin yut agin


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 8:20 PM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 64 of 155 (752274)
03-09-2015 10:10 PM


Salt of the earth.
Faith claims that the Earth is only about 6000 years old so I thought it might be useful to look at evidence we can see today and see if we can find a model, method or mechanism that would allow what is seen to get created in only 6000 years.

To start with let's look at salt.

There are salt beds all over the earth and here in the US we can find some great examples of salt beds that are hundreds of feet thick and buried tens of thousands of feet deep.

One characteristic of such beds is that they are layered, alternating layers of salt divided by layers of clay.

Now salt is an evaporite, salt water exposed at the surface where evaporation works to increase the salinity until a point where the water is super saturated and dries out.

Then we find a layer of clay or dust or dirt that formed on the surface, then another layer that show salt water sitting undisturbed until evaporation creates super salinity and it dies out.

The multiple layers show that that cycle repeats over and over and over again until the bed is hundreds of feet thick. Some of these salt deposits are so large that they lie beneath many states.

But as i mentioned above these beds that formed on the surface are now buried tens of thousands of feet deep.

So here is the question.

What process, method, model, mechanism can create such salt beds at the surface and then bury them under thousands of feet of rock in only 6000 years?

To keep this simple can we please stick to just the evaporite salt beds until we have found a process, model, method or mechanism that can explain how in only 6000 years what we see in reality can be explained?

Edited by jar, : ralle applin spallin


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

jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 155 (752285)
03-10-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-08-2015 9:31 PM


debunkers Faith?
Faith writes:

Retitled this thread because it's been taken over by Flood debunkers who mischaracterize my arguments and put up the usual straw man nonsense. No point in me participating.

Come on now Faith.

The fact is that no one is bullying you and that you keep debunking the flood by your posts.

Far from debunking the flood or young earth others here have actually asked you to support those positions. They have offered you the chance to explain what is seen in the real world as opposed to fantasy.

What is the model, method, process or mechanism to produce the layers of chalk that became the White Cliffs of Dover in just a 6000 year period?

What is the model, method, process or mechanism to produce the over six million alternating light and dark, fine and course layers of the Green River varves in just a 6000 year period?

What is the model, method, process or mechanism to produce the layers of salt and darker clay that are hundreds of feet thick and buried tens of thousands of feet under the surface in just a 6000 year period?

How would a 40 day and 40 night rain wear granite differently than tens of thousands of years of water fall activity?

What is the model, method, process or mechanism to produce long tsunami like waves during or after the flood event and where is the evidence of that wave?

What is the mechanism, process, model or method that allowed the flood to sort critters so that lions and tigers and bears and ohmys never got mixed in with dinosaurs?

No one is debunking the flood Faith or bullying you; just the opposite they are asking you to support the flood, to support Young Earth.

No one is mischaracterizing your arguments but rather begging you to provide arguments, models, explanations, methods, processes that would create what actually exists today.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-08-2015 9:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 66 of 155 (752290)
03-10-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
03-09-2015 10:47 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Faith writes:

Retitled this thread because it's been taken over by Flood debunkers who mischaracterize my arguments and put up the usual straw man nonsense.

Here is your argument (at least one of them)...

Just THINK a bit. ALL the sediments have sediments above and below them. This can happen by settling out or by successive deposition by waves. Just think it through with an eye to how it COULD HAVE WORKED.

Now, jar has given you a specific example with which you can apply your argument and explain how these salt deposits can be layered with clay deposits by settling out or by successive deposits by waves. He is asking you to describe in more detail how this process could have occurred. Our observations suggest that these deposits take long periods of time to accumulate.

How is this mischaracterizing your arguments? How is this debunkery? How is this strawman nonsense?

We obviously don't have an "eye to how it could have happened." This is where you who are enlightened need to explain it better. Just saying "by settling out or by successive deposition by waves" is not good enough. When we learn about the physical processes involved in these types of deposits, there is a great amount of detail given... a detailed description of the process. It makes sense. If you say it happened a different way, then you need to describe why the standard way of thinking is wrong and how your idea works better - in detail.

Another good idea would be to propose an experiment we could do (even if only a thought experiment) that would lend credibility to the idea of waves depositing salts in successive layers interspersed with clays.

No point in me participating.

Is the real reason there is no point in you participating that you really don't have a good argument? Just "What ifs?"

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 10:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM herebedragons has responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 155 (752295)
03-10-2015 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by herebedragons
03-10-2015 10:42 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The way I see it, HBD, somebody gets all involved in trying to prove the Flood didn't happen by getting minutely scientific about how particles settle out of water, as if that is the only possible way the layers could have been formed by the Flood. So I just point out that settling out isn't the only way layers could have formed. Waves deposit sand on beaches, there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood. And the next thing that happens is the subject is changed and somebody is demanding that I show how the Flood accounts for the salt beds.

But this thread was a bully swarm long before that anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2015 10:42 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:30 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 11:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 76 by herebedragons, posted 03-10-2015 1:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 3:23 PM Faith has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 68 of 155 (752296)
03-10-2015 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:19 AM


details
Faith writes:

The way I see it, HBD, somebody gets all involved in trying to prove the Flood didn't happen by getting minutely scientific about how particles settle out of water, as if that is the only possible way the layers could have been formed by the Flood.

But that is all that is important Faith, the details, the model, the process, the method.

Faith writes:

So I just point out that settling out isn't the only way layers could have formed.

Great, so present the scientific details that show how waves could produce the effect being discussed.

And yes Faith, the process, method, mechanics, model you present must explain all of what is seen today.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 69 of 155 (752297)
03-10-2015 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:19 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The way I see it, HBD, somebody gets all involved in trying to prove the Flood didn't happen by getting minutely scientific about how particles settle out of water, ...

Well, when we see YECs avoiding details it forces us to make a point about them.

... as if that is the only possible way the layers could have been formed by the Flood. So I just point out that settling out isn't the only way layers could have formed. Waves deposit sand on beaches, ....

Well, you might notice that even with beaches and waves any silt- or clay-sized particle stay in suspension so that they are not deposited on the beach; and on gravel beaches the effect is even more pronounced.

... there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood.

Umm, ... Faith?

You might have noticed that there are waves on the land masses today, also.

And the next thing that happens is the subject is changed and somebody is demanding that I show how the Flood accounts for the salt beds.

Well, we were trying to figure out how waves formed salt beds, but you haven't helped us very much by just complaining about question.

But this thread was a bully swarm long before that anyway.

Yes, we have a problem with willful ignorance. It's like one of those harmful mutations...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 12:30 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 12:36 PM edge has responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 155 (752304)
03-10-2015 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by edge
03-10-2015 11:37 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
I have a problem with willful ignorance too, and it's very interesting how it's all about the Flood:

2 Peter 3:3-7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 11:37 AM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 03-10-2015 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 155 (752305)
03-10-2015 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by edge
03-10-2015 11:37 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
You go from one non sequitur to another. In saying that waves would ALSO have been involved, I'm not saying they must account for any particular layer. The task is to figure out which did what where. Not that YOU care, since you're quite content to call it all hopeless on the slightest thought that crosses your mind.

I would still like to see someone acknowledge that to explain enormous slabs of rock of different sediments, stacked on top of one another across whole continents but not covering exactly the same area, by the theory of successive time periods of multiple millions of years, is absurd. Of course you won't and in fact your personal m.o. is just to come back at me with "why?" Saves you a lot of thought. Seems to me if that's the way the history of the earth happened then we should expect our time period also to end up as a slab of rock on top of all the others, the American version on top of those spanning the North American continent, but of course you know THAT is absurd, you just won't acknowledge that the whole scenario is absurd. We've got a stack of flat rocks topped by a very lumpy hilly mountainous highly disturbed terrain with deep canyons cut in it that didn't show up in any of the early nice flat slab time periods, but none of that penetrates the consciousness of the committed Flood debunker.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 11:37 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 1:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 72 of 155 (752307)
03-10-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
03-10-2015 12:30 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
quote:
2 Peter 3:3-7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished....

The thing is, we know it didn't happen literally. We know that as surely as we know France exists. By your willful ignorance of what we do know, you're the one who is denigrating the Bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 12:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 73 of 155 (752308)
03-10-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
03-09-2015 10:47 AM


waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
... ALL the sediments have sediments above and below them. This can happen by settling out or by successive deposition by waves. Just think it through with an eye to how it COULD HAVE WORKED.

Breaking waves pick up objects, the more energy in the breaking waves (a function of height) the larger is the material picked up

Large storm waves scour the beaches of sand and transport it offshore into bars. Smaller waves that break over the bars can pick up the finer material and transport it back to the beach. I see this all the time at my parents house on Cape Cod. One of the things I would like to do is install a camera that takes a picture at each low tide so you can observe how the beach moves back and forth.

These storm waves will pickup any silt or sand layers, so your global waves have no hope of leaving them undisturbed while they lay another layer down -- the fines will be mixed up.

Waves that don't break do not move sediment -- this is why the storm waves drop the sand etc as it is carried away from shore once the sediment is carried out to the area of non-breaking waves.

Curiously people have studied how waves actually work (I know a scientist at Scripps Oceanographic that actually studies waves ... ), and so they KNOW how waves work.

Let's look at non-breaking waves from above:

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

quote:

In a longitudinal wave the particle displacement is parallel to the direction of wave propagation. The animation at right shows a one-dimensional longitudinal plane wave propagating down a tube. The particles do not move down the tube with the wave; they simply oscillate back and forth about their individual equilibrium positions. Pick a single particle and watch its motion. The wave is seen as the motion of the compressed region (ie, it is a pressure wave), which moves from left to right.


Notice the red dots moving back and forth. The only way material is transported is when the wave breaks and falls into the trough. Now a cross section view (same link):

quote:

Water waves are an example of waves that involve a combination of both longitudinal and transverse motions. As a wave travels through the waver, the particles travel in clockwise circles. The radius of the circles decreases as the depth into the water increases. The movie below shows a water wave travelling from left to right in a region where the depth of the water is greater than the wavelength of the waves. I have identified two particles in yellow to show that each particle indeed travels in a clockwise circle as the wave passes.


Notice how the (circular) movement diminishes with depth, and at about 3 wave-heights (crest to trough) it is essentially still. If the bottom is above this range it will cause the wave to trip, which is why waves break on shores.

A wave breaking on shore will pick up and suspend material with the size depending on the wave height\energy. Large waves will deposit rocks on the beach and keep sand and silt suspended as the waves return. This can cause scouring on the beach and I have seen rocks exposed at low tide covered by sand before a storm and then uncovered by the storm (and the sand/silt/fines that are suspended are deposited on a sand bar just out of the active wave action area.

Non-breaking waves do not transport material from one location to another, they do not disperse sediment or suspended particles.

Breaking waves scour the bottom and suspend particulate matter in the turbulence of the breaking wave, with the size of the suspended particles related to their size and settling velocities.

Your succession of waves (a) will not deposit graded layers on top of graded layers and (b) will not leave layers of silt behind.

... Just think it through with an eye to how it COULD HAVE WORKED.

The above is (somewhat simplified) how it DOES WORK. I don't have to imagine it.

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 6 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 10:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 1:04 PM RAZD has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


(1)
Message 74 of 155 (752310)
03-10-2015 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
03-10-2015 12:36 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
You go from one non sequitur to another. In saying that waves would ALSO have been involved, I'm not saying they must account for any particular layer. The task is to figure out which did what where. Not that YOU care, since you're quite content to call it all hopeless on the slightest thought that crosses your mind.

Actually, I'm calling these things pretty well known. If you want to take on a task that's been done for over a century, that's fine with me.

I would still like to see someone acknowledge that to explain enormous slabs of rock of different sediments, stacked on top of one another across whole continents but not covering exactly the same area, by the theory of successive time periods of multiple millions of years, is absurd.

So, you would like to see someone agree with you.

Of course you won't and in fact your personal m.o. is just to come back at me with "why?"

Well, yes, of course. That would be me asking you to support your assertions... and you haven't done so to this point.

Saves you a lot of thought.

Believe me, I've been racking my brain trying to figure out what the heck you are trying to say. I'm afraid the brain damage is irreversible.

But this is just another complaint on your part. Why not put some effort into supporting your arguments instead of whining?

Seems to me if that's the way the history of the earth happened then we should expect our time period also to end up as a slab of rock on top of all the others, the American version on top of those spanning the North American continent, but of course you know THAT is absurd, you just won't acknowledge that the whole scenario is absurd.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that your scenario is absurd.

We've got a stack of flat rocks topped by a very lumpy hilly mountainous highly disturbed terrain with deep canyons cut in it that didn't show up in any of the early nice flat slab time periods, but none of that penetrates the consciousness of the committed Flood debunker.

Nonsense. I have drilled on either side of cliffs buried in the geological record. You are way out of line on this one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 12:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 155 (752311)
03-10-2015 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
03-10-2015 12:42 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
I have claimed nothing about nonbreaking waves and you already put all that up to debunk the Flood back when you didn't have a clue I couldn't have been talking about nonbreaking waves.

However, ocean water DOES move stuff. Why does all that junk end up on those little islands? Why do bottles with messages in them finally make land across the world? But I'm not just thinking of what's carried on the surface. The ocean also has layers in it, apparently at different temperatures, and it has currents as well as waves. Don't get too minutely scientific about something until we have a better idea of the various ways the Flood might have worked.

Meanwhile how about giving a thought to the absurdity of explaining flat slabs of rocks as eras of time, as I mentioned in Message 71?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2015 12:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 2:06 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 78 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 2:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 03-11-2015 9:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019