Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:46 AM
19 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,696 Year: 4,733/19,786 Month: 855/873 Week: 211/376 Day: 4/57 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1498
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 121 of 155 (752409)
03-11-2015 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
03-10-2015 11:46 PM


What I have found is that discussing the particulars is rather pointless since it is the basic premises of science that are being rejected. It seems more necessary and beneficial to discuss basic principals rather than specific evidence. For example, how we make inferences, how we use indirect evidence, how we test and verify theories, how and when we use assumptions, etc.

We all know the tired old adages "It's just a theory" or "It's still a fish." So, IMO, the more important point to be made is HOW and WHY we come to the conclusions we do, otherwise it can seem (to them) that our conclusions are a priori assumptions rather than conclusions based on the evidence.

There also seems to be great ignorance of basic scientific principals such as how gravity sorts particles, 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. The kind of things you learn about in introductory science courses. Those are the things that need to be hammered away at.

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 109 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2015 11:46 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

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


(1)
Message 122 of 155 (752410)
03-11-2015 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tanypteryx
03-11-2015 1:01 AM


"I wish Faith could see it from here."

There is no picture that can begin to do the GC justice or give even a hint at the sheer scale of the place. My visit to the GC was before I really started thinking about this whole young earth vs. old earth debate and pretty much assumed the earth was young, just as the Bible supposedly presents it. But I remember trying to imagine how those features could have possibly formed in a single flood event. It was just... indescribable...

There are those who have visited the GC and still hold that it was formed by the flood, but I can't imagine how they reconcile it. As I said, no words or picture can substitute for standing at the rim and looking out over that canyon. "Breath-taking" is all I got!

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 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2015 1:01 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 11:06 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:16 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 123 of 155 (752412)
03-11-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by herebedragons
03-11-2015 10:39 AM


Places that should be visited.
There is no picture that can begin to do the GC justice or give even a hint at the sheer scale of the place. My visit to the GC was before I really started thinking about this whole young earth vs. old earth debate and pretty much assumed the earth was young, just as the Bible supposedly presents it. But I remember trying to imagine how those features could have possibly formed in a single flood event. It was just... indescribable...

There are several places that really provide that kind of contrast and I've been lucky enough to visit several of them.

The Calvert Cliffs are one such place. There you can find giant Megladon teeth and clam shells sticking out of the cliff face (back when I went there, before the Nuclear Power Station, you could still climb the cliff face just from fossil to fossil) while you can watch modern shark teeth and clam shells wash up on the shore.

The Petrified Forest and Painted Desert. The simple scale of those two places left me in awe.

A planetarium. Look out at the universe through an older optical telescope and see time.

Pull over at a highway cut where they widened the pathway for a highway. Look at the exposed layers and then at the tiny surface of soil at the top.

An archeological dig. Many have a need of volunteers and even have programs for amateurs. It is eye opening to see just what scientists actually do and the efforts they take to question their findings.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2015 10:39 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 155 (752414)
03-11-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by herebedragons
03-11-2015 10:39 AM


I would like to see the Grand Canyon, I'm sure it is breathtaking. All I can say about the size of it is that everybody always underestimates the size of the Flood.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by herebedragons, posted 03-11-2015 10:39 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 125 of 155 (752415)
03-11-2015 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by AZPaul3
03-11-2015 8:52 AM


Re: What you can see when you open your eyes.
Very cute but what I'm talking about is the normal sedimentary rocks that we find in the Geo Column. They all deposited horizontally originally, that's kind of a law you know. So when I say that's what would happen in the example given I'm talking about the same phenomena, sediment depositing horizontally. Snow clings to mountainsides, but the sediments all deposit horizontally. You can tell by looking at the walls of the Grand Canyon. This has been discussed on many a thread too and others actually agreed with me about it, because there is nothing to dispute about it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AZPaul3, posted 03-11-2015 8:52 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 155 (752416)
03-11-2015 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by edge
03-11-2015 1:03 AM


I'm aware of being insulting but it can't be helped. I think what I think. I guess I could say I'm sorry it's insulting but I can't stop it from being insulting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 1:03 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 127 of 155 (752417)
03-11-2015 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by edge
03-11-2015 12:58 AM


Re: the Flood don't fit in.
I was answering jar who said for the millionth time that there were many biblical floods. No, there was only one. You hardly ever read in context, why is that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:58 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 128 of 155 (752421)
03-11-2015 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by edge
03-11-2015 12:57 AM


Yes, ancient rivers, buried rivers, buried canyons. Sigh. It's all just the effects of underground water running between the layers after the Flood. There are still underground rivers. It's all quite consistent with the Flood. Oh but we must have it all to be former landscapes. Sigh.

Well, why not? The maps you've seen look an awful lot like modern terrain, so why should its origin be different?

That terrain is seen through the earth, though, right, with some kind of special imaging? You aren't looking directly at surface but something almost diagrammatic? You can see outlines of formations and figure out depths or something like that, but you aren't looking at anything like what we see on the surface of the earth. So you have to reconstruct what you are seeing.

And underground rivers? Seriously? Don't you think there is a difference between solution-formed caves and river drainages?

I'm talking about how it all looks on that imaging. It looks like rivers and canyons drawn in diagram if I'm thinking of the right imaging sources.

How is it that layers built on top of former "landscapes" with such nice straight horizontal lines?

Because that is how valleys fill in. Have you ever seen how a lake fills in a valley? Why would sediments in the lake be any different?

You're talking about an enormous quantity of sediment to fill in an actual landscape with hills and valleys. What happens to the usual idea of how the strata were deposited layer by layer? Do core samples show you that something else is going on here than the usual deposition of strata?

ABE: and again I'm getting sensations of absurdity. Why on earth would a single sediment just come along and cover an entire landscape?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:57 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 11:44 AM Faith has responded
 Message 132 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 11:51 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 155 (752424)
03-11-2015 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by edge
03-11-2015 12:53 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The Great Unconformity is like the disturbances that occurred after all the strata were laid down, it is not like the erosion between the layers. I think it did occur after the strata were laid down, but even if it occurred in the Precambrian time frame as you all think it did, it still leaves big questions about why there was such a huge long interval afterward when no such disturbances were occurring, hundreds of millions of years of placid surface conditions on this earth. I guess that doesn't bother you, as I keep noting.

I wish I could say it clearer about the salt layers. All the cross sections show sedimentary layers above the salt in perfectly typical arrangements as the strata normally form, except that all of them follow the sag of the salt layer. The way I would interpret this, of course, is that they were all laid down in the Flood, perfectly horizontal as usual, and then the salt got wet and started rising and the whole stack deformed along with it.

But on the theory of deposition over millions of years I have to suppose that the salt didn't start rising until all those other layers were in place above it. Is that the accepted timing?There is no other way to account for their all following the contour of the sag, except that one does have to wonder how completely solidified rock could deform in such a plastic-looking way, one would think it would break.

But then if the salt began deforming and rising at any point before all those upper layers were in place, the usual timing of that process being many millions of years, then only those already in place would deform along with it and any layers deposited above that would fill in the sag and have the flat horizontal surface they always have.

I'm probably not getting this said clearly enough. Your answers really didn't address anything I had in mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:53 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:01 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 155 (752425)
03-11-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:31 AM


water runs down hill
Faith writes:

You're talking about an enormous quantity of sediment to fill in an actual landscape. What happens to the usual idea of how the strata were deposited layer by layer? Do core samples show you that something else is going on here than the usual deposition of strata?

Faith, that is the usual way strata are deposited. High spots get weathered and that material gets deposited in low spots.

Reality shows us that happening as well as core samples and mines and modern technology.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:48 AM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 131 of 155 (752426)
03-11-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
03-11-2015 11:44 AM


Re: water runs down hill
Faith, that is the usual way strata are deposited. High spots get weathered and that material gets deposited in low spots.

Reality shows us that happening as well as core samples and mines and modern technology.

Excuse me but this is absurd. Why should the "high spots" contain one and only one sediment or at least the characteristic mix of sediments we find in some layers? And how after tumbling down from the high places to the low places does it sort itself into nice horizontal layers? And how over millions of years of slow deposition would it actually cover over a whole landscape and then become the extremely flat horizontal base for the deposition of the next layer. THIS IS FLAMING NONSENSE.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 11:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 12:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4503
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 132 of 155 (752427)
03-11-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:31 AM


That terrain is seen through the earth, though, right, with some kind of special imaging?

In that case, seismic imaging.

You aren't looking directly at surface but something almost diagrammatic?

No. It's pretty straight forward stuff. If it was different, it would look different.

Do you have an explanation for why it would not be a normal drainage pattern?

You can see outlines of formations and figure out depths or something like that, but you aren't looking at anything like what we see on the surface of the earth.

Why not? What does it look like to you?

So you have to reconstruct what you are seeing.

Well, they are time and distance measurements. We're actually pretty good at that. So, what do you think the patterns actually look like?

I'm talking about how it all looks on that imaging. It looks like rivers and canyons drawn in diagram if I'm thinking of the right imaging sources.

I'm not sure what your problem is. It is a map of seismic measurements.

You're talking about an enormous quantity of sediment to fill in an actual landscape.

And why is that a problem?

What happens to the usual idea of how the strata were deposited layer by layer?

Nothing, they are still deposited in horizontal layers.

Do core samples show you that something else is going on here than the usual deposition of strata?

They show erosion. But I don't know what you mean by 'different'. What would you expect to see?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:58 AM edge has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 133 of 155 (752428)
03-11-2015 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by edge
03-11-2015 11:51 AM


They show erosion. But I don't know what you mean by 'different'. What would you expect to see?

Something other than the mere shape of the terrain. Tree stumps perhaps, something to suggest the actual surface of the earth. Rivers run underground too so I would expect them to look like rivers on seismic imaging, but really nothing more than a channel that water flows through which could just as well be underground as above.

The absurdity of it all blows me away, sorry. Wish I could get it across better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 11:51 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 12:09 PM Faith has responded
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 03-11-2015 12:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4503
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 134 of 155 (752429)
03-11-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:42 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
The Great Unconformity is like the disturbances that occurred after all the strata were laid down, ...

What disturbances are those?

... it is not like the erosion between the layers.

How is it different? Please explain.

I think it did occur after the strata were laid down, but even if it occurred in the Precambrian time frame as you all think it did, it still leaves big questions about why there was such a huge long interval afterward when no such disturbances were occurring, hundreds of millions of years of placid surface conditions on this earth.

Why is that a problem? What principle do you use to say that any particular area must be disturbed or deformed?

I guess that doesn't bother you, as I keep noting.

I have yet to see a reason why it should bother me. Is there a law that says every place on earth must be disturbed every few thousand years?

I wish I could say it clearer about the salt layers. All the cross sections show sedimentary layers above the salt in perfectly typical arrangements as the strata normally form, except that all of them follow the sag of the salt layer. The way I would interpret this, of course, is that they were all laid down in the Flood, perfectly horizontal as usual, and then the salt got wet and started rising and the whole stack deformed along with it.

So, how do you deposit these salt layers in the middle of a global flood?

But on the theory of deposition over millions of years I have to suppose that the salt didn't start rising until all those other layers were in place above it. Is that the accepted timing?

Could be. However, the salt is probably still rising in some areas even though there is active sedimentation in the Gulf..

There is no other way to account for their all following the contour of the sag, ....

That's not the point, however. No one says this did not happen.

... except that one does have to wonder how completely solidified rock could deform in such a plastic-looking way, one would think it would break.

They do. However, under the proper conditions of temperature, confining pressure and rate of deformation, all rocks are plastic.

But then if the salt began deforming and rising at any point before all those upper layers were in place, the usual timing of that process being many millions of years, then only those already in place would deform along with it and any layers deposited above that would fill in the sag and have the flat horizontal surface they always have.

If the rise stops that is what we would see.

I'm probably not getting this said clearly enough. Your answers really didn't address anything I had in mind.

What we are asking is how the salt was deposited in the middle of a global flood.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:42 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:33 PM edge has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 135 of 155 (752432)
03-11-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
03-11-2015 11:48 AM


Re: water runs down hill
Faith writes:

Excuse me but this is absurd. Why should the "high spots" contain one and only one sediment or at least the characteristic mix of sediments we find in some layers? And how after tumbling down from the high places to the low places does it sort itself into nice horizontal layers? And how over millions of years of slow deposition would it actually cover over a whole landscape and then become the extremely flat horizontal base for the deposition of the next layer. THIS IS FLAMING NONSENSE.

Well, what gets weathered and carried down hill will be what the high spot happens to be made from. That is one way that scientists can determine where material came from.

It does not really sort itself but rather over time either gets buried under additional layers of material, compressed and become rock, or the low area gets lifted up and it in turn becomes the high spot to get weathered and worn down

But your idea of flat horizontal bases is also not what is actually seen in reality. As was pointed out in the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. the layers are not smooth or even horizontal and we can see where additional deposition takes place over bases that are not flat and horizontal. We also see in reality that sometimes layers get tilted where part is exposed at the surface. In such cases the exposed part then gets weathered, eroded and so we see abrupt changes in the layering.

All of this is pretty normal and just processes we can see going on even today, but they also require long periods of time, far longer than 6000 years and show no signs that there was either Biblical Flood.

The accepted explanations explain what is seen in reality but NO ONE has ever presented a model, method, mechanism or process to create what is seen through any flood of any magnitude, to create what is seen in one year or even in 6000 years.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

Prev1
...
678
9
1011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019