Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,422 Year: 18,458/19,786 Month: 878/1,705 Week: 130/518 Day: 4/52 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 76 of 155 (752315)
03-10-2015 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:19 AM


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

But that's how science works, Faith. We argue over details because that is what strengthens an argument. Believe it or not, science relies heavily on indirect evidence and inferences and it is those minute details that make the difference between a strong inference and a weak inference. This even more so true in modern science where all the easy, direct observations have been done.

As an example, I am studying plant pathology. So, I inoculate a plant with a potential pathogen and then observe disease symptoms on the plant some time later. I then conclude that said organism is a plant pathogen. Now realize that conclusion IS an inference. I did not actually witness the organism CAUSE disease nor did I actually observe the disease - I only observed the symptoms. So, what details, if you knew them, would make this inference stronger? What details, if left out, would make this inference weak?

You propose an inference about a particular formation and we ask for the details because those details, if left out, make your inference very weak. In addition, the assumptions we make regarding those details are contradictory to the inference you propose. For example, we assume that larger, denser particles will settle out before smaller particles. Is that not a valid assumption? What forces would be at play that would make that an invalid assumption?

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.

That's not a change in subject... that is an opportunity to apply your "model." How does your model explain those formations?

Waves deposit sand on beaches, there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood.

Keep in mind that even in this case the sorting of particles by density and size still applies unless you can provide a reason why that assumption does not hold in a particular case.

How about you choose an example of your own to apply your model to. I really liked the Coconino Sandstone myself. Apply your model to the formation of the Coconino Sandstone; provide details as to how receding flood waters deposited that formation, show some calculations as to the rates of deposition that would be required to lay down that layer in a matter of days or weeks (whatever the time frame you think is plausible).

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

Yeah, I can understand how you feel. But you can't just make an assertion and expect everyone to accept it - especially in a science thread. Before you make an assertion such as "there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood." be prepared to defend that assertion... with plausible details.

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 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31458
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 77 of 155 (752319)
03-10-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-10-2015 1:04 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
Faith writes:

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?

Guess what Faith. Folk have actually given thought to slabs of rock.

They have studied how mountains are built up and found it takes lots of time.

They have studied how mountains are weathered and worn down and found that it takes lots of time.

They have studied how the products of weathering get ground finer and finer until it becomes sand and it takes lots of time.

They have studied how the sand gets buried under newer layers, gets compressed and becomes sand stone and it takes lots of time.

They have studied how the layers that were above the sand stone get eroded away exposing the sand stone and it takes lots of time.

Folk have given thought to what is seen Faith and while all the processes are pretty normal, they all take time.

What you are asking is to imagine all those things happened but they happened over night. So it is reasonable for folk to ask you "How? How do you do all those things and it not take lots of time?"

What is the model, mechanism, method, process that explains those flat slabs of rock that does not require eras of time?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 1:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 78 of 155 (752324)
03-10-2015 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-10-2015 1:04 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
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?

You wanted an explanation? I thought you only wanted to say that mainstream explanations are absurd. In fact, that kind of indicates that you have had them explained to you.

So, what do you want? The absurdity of explaining them to you? Or the absurdity that you already 'know' about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 1:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:16 PM edge has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 79 of 155 (752337)
03-10-2015 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by edge
03-10-2015 2:19 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
I want you to acknowledge the absurdity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 2:19 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 4:13 PM Faith has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2322
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 80 of 155 (752339)
03-10-2015 3:23 PM
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, 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.

The devil's in the details.

The details are what makes up a successful theory. If you can't explain the details you have nothing. All of the details.

You keeping making up assertions about various geological features, but you will not explain how your scenario would actually work. We keep asking and you keep saying it should be obvious if we THINK about it, but when details about those features are pointed out that could not have formed in the manner you claim, you get all defensive instead of explaining it.

It is like you are writing the titles of chapters in your book of the flood, but never getting around to writing the actual chapter. We want to read your book, but every time we ask you about what the chapter says you repeat the title and accuse us of being bullies.

Guess what? Science is all about the details, not the titles of the chapters. Millions of details, in tens of thousands of scientific research papers and books, explain the discoveries of the science of geology.

You say the view of geologists that the earth is billions of years old and that our explanations are absurd, but we have millions of details, hundreds of chapters full of details that you have no better explanation for.

We are waiting for a better explanation.

When new discoveries are made, there are new details and if they contradict past discoveries, experiments are devised to find out why. Science is continuously fine tuning the details, refining our understanding of the details and correcting our mistaken understanding when necessary.

If you will not even try fill in the details of your chapters it makes it look like you do not have anything that is minimally plausible.


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 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:51 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 81 of 155 (752344)
03-10-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2015 3:23 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
There's no point in pondering the details of a process if you don't have the slightest clue how it fits into the Flood. Yall just assume the first thing to run through your head is sufficient and then you get into the details. .

Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.

This observation kills establishment geology so of course you can't see it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 3:23 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2015 4:11 PM Faith has responded
 Message 84 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 4:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 86 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 4:40 PM Faith has responded
 Message 103 by jar, posted 03-10-2015 11:40 PM Faith has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 82 of 155 (752345)
03-10-2015 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-10-2015 3:51 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.

Who thinks that's how it happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 83 of 155 (752346)
03-10-2015 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
03-10-2015 3:16 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
I want you to acknowledge the absurdity.

So, you want us to agree with you.

Otherwise, we are crazy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:16 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:51 PM edge has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 84 of 155 (752347)
03-10-2015 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-10-2015 3:51 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
There's no point in pondering the details of a process if you don't have the slightest clue how it fits into the Flood.

Why does it have to fit into the flood?

Isn't that kind of 'anti-science'?

Yall just assume the first thing to run through your head is sufficient and then you get into the details. .
Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.

Why is that absurd?

This observation kills establishment geology so of course you can't see it.

What observation is that and why do you think it's been missed for so long?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 5:55 PM edge has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 85 of 155 (752348)
03-10-2015 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
03-10-2015 4:11 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Who thinks that's how it happened?

I think it's the 'Faith Strawman Version of Geology'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2015 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2322
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 86 of 155 (752351)
03-10-2015 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
03-10-2015 3:51 PM


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

Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.

You know that I could not possibly acknowledge that as absurd.

I just told you that there are millions of details, compiled by scientists for the last 2 centuries, that explain it in minute detail. It makes perfect sense. You are the only person on the planet Earth that cannot see the obvious conclusions that the sedimentary layers are the accumulations of millions of years.

You have not been paying attention. There is no sudden disturbance occurring now. You are just making that up. We have pointed out hundreds of times in dozens of threads that the geological processes of erosion and deposit and uplift have been happening for 4 billion plus years and the evidence is right there for anyone to see, buried in the rock layers.

You keep denying it is there but we have shown you photos of it over and over.

Anyway, how about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of a one year global flood, that violates the laws of nature and all the principles of physics and that is completely contradicted by all the evidence that anyone can go and see.

This observation kills establishment geology so of course you can't see it.

Good Grief Faith! That is not an observation. It is a fantasy that you made up that is contradicted by actual observations, so of course I can't see it.

There is no such thing as establishment geology. That is just another thing you made up to try and bolster you crumbling fantasy.

Reality Faith, that is what we observe, and it kills your fantasy flood.


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 81 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 3:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 6:22 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 87 of 155 (752353)
03-10-2015 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
03-10-2015 4:11 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The evidence is quite visible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2015 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2015 6:44 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 96 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 8:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 88 of 155 (752354)
03-10-2015 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by edge
03-10-2015 4:13 PM


Re: waves, big waves, small waves, breaking news about breaking waves
I'd like you to see what I see and acknowledge it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 4:13 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 7:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 89 of 155 (752355)
03-10-2015 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by edge
03-10-2015 4:15 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
I didn't say it has to fit in the Flood, but they do, that's why they are spending all that time on particles.

Why absurd. Because nature doesn't sort itself into slabs of rocks containing the entire flora and fauna of an era. Our era isn't going to be reduced to a particular sedimentary rock either. Every time I look at the walls of the Grand Canyon I wonder how anybody can think those discrete units of rock could actually represent identifiable time periods on earth. I guess all I can say is it's obvious.

Why do I think it's been missed for so long? Because you are all looking at the trees instead of the forest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 4:15 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 7:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33256
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 90 of 155 (752356)
03-10-2015 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2015 4:40 PM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
You have not been paying attention. There is no sudden disturbance occurring now. You are just making that up. We have pointed out hundreds of times in dozens of threads that the geological processes of erosion and deposit and uplift have been happening for 4 billion plus years and the evidence is right there for anyone to see, buried in the rock layers.

Yes I know you can't see it. I didn't say the disturbance was occurring right now. It occurred after all the strata were in place though. I'm talking as usual about those neat layers you can see in the Grand Canyon that were laid down before the canyon was cut and all that erosion above the canyon to the Grand Staircase. And the known layers of rock that span huge areas of the North American continent. Every time I contemplate it I wonder why nobody sees what I sere in it.

I believe this pattern is true across the globe. Wherever there's a salt layer shown in cross section you can see for instance that the layers above it sag right along with the distortion it creates. That shouldn't be so if the layers were supposedly laid down over millions of years. The more recent layers should have a flat surface. And the salt should have long since dissipated too, through the domes it makes in the layers above, if we're talking millsions upon millions of years. All this seems quite open and shut to me.

But there are places some point to that they think show disturbance during the laying down of the strata. Some of it's ambiguous, but really, there should be NO place on earth where the strata could have accumulated miles deep for thousands of square miles over multiple millions of years years without being disturbed on the order of a huge canyon's being cut into them and huge quantities of matter eroded away such as we see at the Kaibab Plateau and the stairs of the Grand Staircase.

But oh well, I know it's always going to be rationalized away.

It would be nice, though, if somebody would look at it and see what I see.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 86 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 4:40 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2015 7:42 PM Faith has responded
 Message 95 by edge, posted 03-10-2015 8:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019