|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Liar. What I love about this post is the depth of research and reasoning that backs it up.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes we've done it to death and I never agreed with you that science that interprets the past has the same explanatory power as science has that can be replicated in the present over and over and over. And you were wrong. Hey, we've gotten used to that. And I got you to admit that you were wrong, which is more unusual. But I'm sure we have a thread about this subject.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
See, the problem is that when you get me to move off the thread you then continue the same discussion without allowing me to answer you. Is that fair? Well, y'know, the grown-ups are talking. We have a place for you to play. I think that's fair.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If you take 10 pennies and toss them on the table we know that theoretically they land with 5 heads and 4 tails ... Now that would be remarkable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And one of the horrible tragedies of this whole thing is that it separates Christians from their church. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist. BUT, there is no reason why knowing about evolution and geology should make people turn their backs on God and Jesus. There are different reasons for being an atheist, which I will explain on another thread to anyone who wants to listen. But evolution is not a good reason. But the problem is that the evangelical Christians insist that it IS. They want to tell you that if you believe certain facts about geology, then you hate Jesus, you're an atheist, they are right to kick you out of their church. I will stand on my principles, and tell you that even though they are wrong about creationism, you may still be right about believing in God and accepting Jesus as your saviour. I say that's a different question. THEY say that it's the same question. THEY say that it's the same question.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yes, the question is as you expected and the Lewis Overthrust is an example of my question. Well, the Lewis Overthrust is a classic example of something you can see is an overthrust just by looking at it. There's an interesting story about this in Ronald Number's book The Creationists. A young-Earther was going to publish an article about how there was no sign of overthrust at the interface. A couple of old-Earthers (still creationists) realized that he was looking a few hundred yards too low, and actually took him up the mountain and showed him the rocks. But the article had been typeset, and YECs are not notoriously scrupulous .... It's a sad story, I guess, because the moral is that if you take a YEC up a mountain and show him the rocks, he'll still lie about what they look like. Reality is wasted on some people.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It is probably the best description of science that I have ever seen. * drums fingers on desk, awaits dissent *
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
People do make artificial marble out of calcium carbonate by applying temperature and pressure. It's hard to research this topic because people also make artificial marble a whole lot of other ways. But this seems to be an example: Grain growth in synthetic marbles with added mica and water | SpringerLink
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Would someone be so kind as to remind this YEC of what exactly makes it eas6y to tell the strata were progressively deposited over long long periods of time? Well, knowing how old each stratum is is a big help.
And I suppose the weight of a few miles of sediment isn't really necessary for lithification; a few feet will do it over a million or so years or something like that? That wouldn't bring about compaction but I suppose recrystalization and/or cementation could happen in that time. It's a bit of a moot point, 'cos where's sediment going to sit for a few million years without either erosion to remove it or deposition to bury it deeper?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh yeah, all that minuscule "sub-aerial" erosion. Compare it to the massive erosion that we can see occurred after all the strata were laid down, the cutting of canyons, the scouring of huge flat surfaces of particular layers, such as the Kaibab plateau, the cutting of steppes, the tilting and folding of whole depths of layers, and so on. Claims of internal erosion are ridiculous by comparison. Where are the huge canyons in the internal layers, filled in by the upper layers, and so on. Have you ever read any of my posts? I've pointed out exactly such features to you about a jillion times.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So, let me translate:
I'm sure the origin of arkose is part of the actual work of Geology and not the Geologic Time Scale assumption. "I'm going to pretend that something geologists actually do in their work all the time is not part of the 'actual work of geology'."
There is no evidence for the Geo Time Scale, "There is lots of evidence for the geological time scale, which I choose to ignore."
it's all assumption based on theory, "As with any interpretation of any data, scientists studying the geological record take the known laws of nature into account, and I wish to make this sound like a bad thing rather than the hallmark of the scientific method and the essence of sanity."
so it makes no sense to expect a YEC to challenge it on evidentiary grounds. "So it makes no sense to expect a YEC to challenge it on evidentiary grounds. Heck, if we went around presenting evidence we'd be like scientists. Ew!"
We challenge it all the time on logical grounds but that you'll never accept. "However, even though you've beaten us on the evidence, we can still misunderstand, reject, or ignore the scientific method. You are not impressed by these antics."
For instance it IS clear that the Time Scale has come to an end and I've given all sorts of good reasons why that is the case, that is even really evidence, that you'll never even understand let alone accept. "I have talked nonsense about geology before, and although it didn't fool you I still found the experience oddly satisfying."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What is the "obvious" evidence of the "erosion" you are referring to "before the Cambrian" and "prior to the Cretaceous" that you say is "in addition to the modern erosional surface on which we live?" This last phrase, however, inspires me to use it to generalize my argument. The "modern erosional surface on which we live" is indeed what I keep coming back to as the evidence for all kinds of things I've been saying. This erosional surface is MASSIVE and UNLIKE anything you all call erosion to be found within the Geologic Column. In the Grand Canyon arguments I keep trying to get someone to notice that the scale of the "modern erosional surface on which we live" includes the massive canyon itself, includes the massively scoured-off surface of the Kaibab Plateau, includes the massive cliffs that make up the Grand Staircase, and yet everybody keeps claiming there is "erosion" between the layers of the walls of the Grand Canyon itself. NONSENSE. Whatever is going on geologically with that thrust under the State of Tennessee it still remains true that the surface of the state, that is, the"modern erosional surface on which we live" is clearly indicated on the map to involve a series of terraces formed from the eroded remnants of the layers of the Geologic Column. The idea that this Geologic Column, and therefore the Geologic Time Scale, continues into the present, beyond the so-called Quaternary, or the Holocene or whatever the most recent time period is supposed to be, when all the previous "time periods" are represented by mere SLABS OF ROCK, is LUDICROUS. The "erosional surface on which we live now" is composed of MASSIVE MOUNTAINS, DEEP VALLEYS, RIVER GORGES, BUTTES, MASSIVE TEPUI, ENORMOUS RIVERS LIKE THE AMAZON AND THE MISSIPPI, and yet the claim is that whole eras of past time in chunks of hundreds of millions of years on this planet are collapsed into slabs of rock. Wny isn't the blatant absurdity of this OBVIOUS? Do you really expect to find mountains buried in the geological column? You know mountains are quite big, yes? They're famous for it. And mountains are erosional and not depositional environments. One would, however, expect to find buried canyons, some of which I have pointed out to you. Let's look at a really big one. The Nile Canyon was just as wide as the Grand Canyon, but 400 meters deeper and four times as long. Is this the sort of erosion you claim we don't find in the geological record? 'Cos we do. You'd know about this if you'd ever taken an interest in geology. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Fix first para: "depositional and not erosional" => "erosional and not depositional"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The idea that a topographically varied surface like today's would end up buried under slabs of rock is absurd. Quite so. What we actually expect is that the low-lying features would be buried under sediment and/or sedimentary rock, and the prominent features would be eroded. Which is what we actually see evidence for. You alone are responsible for the absurdity of your ideas. Edited by Admin, : Fix first para: "buried and sediment and/or sedimentary rock" => "buried under sediment and/or sedimentary rock"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And after the bag / the sediment slab luggage gets packed it all just stops and stays that way until another earth landscape develops. But ya know that raises more problems. We've got this flat rock that extends across the continent. Where's the sediment going to come from to create the next time period / landscape? Have you ever noticed these things, they're called mountains?
Can you figure out where the sediment is coming from?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024