Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,448 Year: 6,705/9,624 Month: 45/238 Week: 45/22 Day: 12/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 751 of 1053 (760713)
06-24-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
06-24-2015 9:23 PM


Re: Maps
Note colored areas that designate "time periods." Physically they are steppes or terraces that ascend from right/East to left/West, with the exception of the pink Ordovician which is a low butte in the middle of the blue.
Actually, it is an arch. Because the sediments are bowed upward, erosion has removed some of the post-Ordovician rocks. Think of it as a broad anticline or a dome.
Those are all surfaces of layers that were exposed by the erosion of the layer above. The surfaces are quite extensive. Of course they are no longer flat and horizontal since the whole area has been tectonically warped, but the principle is there nevertheless.
I'm not sure what this principle is.
This is erosion that obviously occurred after the entire stack was in place.
This sentence does not track with what you are saying below.
This extensive erosion can be seen everywhere the geologic column exists. There is nothing even remotely like the extent of this erosion within the strata.
You just said they were exposed by erosion and they are quite extensive.
This is clear evidence against hundreds of millions of years.
I don't see why. Why can't you have a lot of events over millions of years?
ABE: The tectonic movement of course also occurred only after all the strata were in place, which is also evident wherever the geo column exists, with the supposed exception of the "great unconformity" that can be seen between the basement/Precambrian rocks and the strata above.
This isn't what you said above. Please explain.
This tectonic movement is no doubt the cause of the massive erosion that occurred after all layers were in place, and I've argued also the cause of the "great unconformity" but we don't have to argue that here.
How is tectonism the cause of erosion? Do you think there could be more than one tectonic event?
I've clearly argued that this massive erosion occurred in the Grand Canyon area after all strata had been laid down, and that claims of so-called erosion within the stack are ridiculously out of scale, ...
Again, you just said that the erosion between layers is extensive and caused by warping. This is a confusing post.
... so those who think this is something new haven't been paying attention.
There is a major unconformity in the section shown at the base of the Cretaceous. This indicates an erosional event after the Palezoic rocks were laid down, deformed and eroded, but before the Cretaceous rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 9:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 9:26 AM edge has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 752 of 1053 (760714)
06-24-2015 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by Faith
06-24-2015 9:23 PM


Re: Maps
Faith writes:
There is nothing even remotely like the extent of this erosion within the strata.
You saying this doesn't make it true - and in fact it's not true as has been demonstrated over and over.
But I'm not going round and round with you on this. You present opinion, not scientific evidence and I'm not creating a curriculum called "Faith's opinion for wavering fundamentalists".
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by Faith, posted 06-24-2015 9:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 753 of 1053 (760748)
06-25-2015 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 751 by edge
06-24-2015 10:04 PM


Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
You and I have a sad record of miscommunication and I can only expect more of the same here, but oh well.
Faith writes:
Note colored areas that designate "time periods." Physically they are steppes or terraces that ascend from right/East to left/West, with the exception of the pink Ordovician which is a low butte in the middle of the blue.
edge writes:
Actually, it is an arch. Because the sediments are bowed upward, erosion has removed some of the post-Ordovician rocks. Think of it as a broad anticline or a dome
OK, but that's the result of tectonic distortion which occurred after all layers were in place, right? I was referring to the order of deposition which originally would have been horizontal and continuous across the whole area. Now the layers have been broken off or partially eroded away and if they were still horizontal they'd ascend up from one layer to the next from the oldest, Precambrian rocks on the East. to the most recent, Quaternary rocks on the West. But I'm aware they've been twisted tectonically so aren't the neat steps they suggest on the map. Tennessee is interesting, however, because it spans just about the whole Geologic Time Scale.
What I'm focused on is the surface area of the stata without the tectonic deformation which is the eroded remnants of all the layers in the Geologic Time Scale in the form of steps or terraces, the oldest exposed on the East, the newest on the West.
The principle in my mind is the principle of original horizontality, but also the principle of original superposition.
From here we go into Extreme Miscommunication Mode, I'm almost afraid to proceed at all.
This is erosion that obviously occurred after the entire stack was in place.
This sentence does not track with what you are saying below.
It tracks with everything I've said but as usual you are reading something I wrote completely out of synch with what I said and I can never figure out what you mean so here we go into Headache Land.
The erosion I'm talking about is on the surface of the land, extends from east to west, removed sediment from each of the layers starting at the east so that the eroded parts form steps or terraces that climb upward to the west. ASSUMING ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY that is: I KNOW THEY ARE WARPED NOW so that they don't form flat terraces.
Here is one cross section of Tennessee to show how the strata are bent now:
The strata are bent and twisted in all sorts of directions but they are only ERODED or broken off at the surface.
This extensive erosion can be seen everywhere the geologic column exists. There is nothing even remotely like the extent of this erosion within the strata.
You just said they were exposed by erosion and they are quite extensive.
As usual I have no idea how you are misreading me but ulcer time is coming up, probably for both of us.
The erosion occurred after they were all in place, exposing the formerly buried surfaces of each of the layers in turn from east to west, so that extensive areas of each are exposed on the east end of each, where they broke off and exposed the layer beneath one after another. I do not know how to make this any clearer. THE EROSION OCCURRED AFTER THEY WERE ALL IN PLACE, not during deposition, AFTER. The entire surface area of Tennessee appears to be made up of these partially exposed layers that form terraces, or would if they were still horizontal. I wish I could draw on Paint better but it doesn't work.
This is clear evidence against hundreds of millions of years.
I don't see why. Why can't you have a lot of events over millions of years?
Because it all happened on the surface, that is, since the last layer was laid down, that being the Quaternary layer, which is only two and a half million years old according to official Geological Time. (Of course I believe it all happened about 4500 years ago but oh well, two and a half million years is short on your reckoning.) Point is the layers beneath that one formed over much much older and longer time periods. If any of this erosion had occurred before Recent Time it would not have formed steps. Some of the layers would likely have been eroded much more extensively in the westward direction during the much much longer periods during which they supposedly formed, and in that case layers above would have deposited into the gaps created by the erosion. But no, they make up the continuous step-wise upper surface of the state of Tennessee. I'm sure you'll just give your usual dismissal because you just don't get it but it's really very obvious.
There is no erosion within the strata, it's all on the surface, therefore having occurred after all the layers were in place, or in Geological Time since the Quaternary which is represented on the far left of the map of Tennessee:
If any of this erosion had happened over the hundreds of millions of years of deposition there would not be a continuous stack of strata, there would be all kinds of depressions the strata would have filled up. Instead there is only the erosion of the eastern ends of the layers, all forming the surface of the land.
ABE: The tectonic movement of course also occurred only after all the strata were in place, which is also evident wherever the geo column exists, with the supposed exception of the "great unconformity" that can be seen between the basement/Precambrian rocks and the strata above.
This isn't what you said above. Please explain.
Oy. I don't know which part you are objecting to, but as far as the role of tectonic movement goes, the deforming of the strata itself, seen on the cross section, would have loosened and eroded away parts of the layers after they were all in place. Just as I argued happened in the Grand Canyon/ Grand Staircase area as well, in that case creating the staircase itself and the Grand Canyon itself as well as Zion Canyon, as well as scouring off the Kaibab plateau. In Tennessee it warped the geologic column and caused pieces of the strata to break off and erode away. (Which on my usual scenario would mean these pieces were washed away in the receding Flood waters, same as in the GS/GC area.)
This tectonic movement is no doubt the cause of the massive erosion that occurred after all layers were in place, and I've argued also the cause of the "great unconformity" but we don't have to argue that here.
How is tectonism the cause of erosion?
As stated above, twists the strata, shakes things up, pieces break off and erode away. You know, the way the earthquake in Nepal eroded off chunks of the Himalayas.
Do you think there could be more than one tectonic event?
Could be but I don't see any reason for more than one major such event in the exposing of the layers here.
I've clearly argued that this massive erosion occurred in the Grand Canyon area after all strata had been laid down, and that claims of so-called erosion within the stack are ridiculously out of scale, ...
Again, you just said that the erosion between layers is extensive and caused by warping. This is a confusing post.
Sigh. All my posts are confusing to you. While I could no doubt be clearer if I could figure out what the problem is, really for the most part it's predominantly a paradigm clash. You have no good will to assist in resolving it and we really shouldn't even talk to each other.
I don't know what you are misreading now but I've said nothing about erosion BETWEEN layers because there is none, there is erosion of the surfaces of the layers on their east ends which all break off and expose a lower layer in each case, all of which together form the whole land surface of the State of Tennessee. As for warping that's the effect of the tectonic movement that also occurred after the layers were all in place and as I say above is probably what brought about the erosion by bending and twisting the strata.
There is a major unconformity in the section shown at the base of the Cretaceous. This indicates an erosional event after the Palezoic rocks were laid down, deformed and eroded, but before the Cretaceous rocks.
Sigh. You are comparing a small local event to the entire eroded surface of the State of Tennessee, and since you don't bother to describe it I can't answer it directly, which is a typical strategy of yours.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by edge, posted 06-24-2015 10:04 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 10:49 AM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 754 of 1053 (760753)
06-25-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 753 by Faith
06-25-2015 9:26 AM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
Faith, you are leaping into a complex subject without any preparation. Starting at the end of your post:
Sigh. You are comparing a small local event to the entire eroded surface of the State of Tennessee, and since you don't bother to describe it I can't answer it directly, which is a typical strategy of yours.
First of all, the geological map and your cross-section are not indexed to each other.
The cross section is on a completely different scale encompassing only the Carolina Thrust Belt on the very eastern edge of Tennessee. The map shows that as you go farther west into Tennessee, you get less and less disturbance from the Appalachian mountain building event. For instance, the large dome I referenced in my last post does not even show up on the cross section you present.
And, no, there is not just one erosional event. For instance, the Cambrian rocks depicted on the geological map include arkoses which are derived from erosion of granitic basement rocks of the Precambrian. Furthermore there is a gap in the record between the Pennsylvanian rocks and the Cretaceous rocks in western Tennessee. And then, of course, there are other minor unconformities within the section that do not show up on a map of this scale. I will try to find a strat section that shows more, but most of the diagrams I find are insanely detailed and not appropriate for a discussion like this.
As usual, the picture is a lot more complex than YECs would like.
Perhaps more later. I have a little work to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 9:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 11:16 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 755 of 1053 (760754)
06-25-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by edge
06-25-2015 10:49 AM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
Faith, you are leaping into a complex subject without any preparation.
There are no relevant complexities in the part I've focused on. What I've said is based on simple observation and is true as stated.
First of all, the geological map and your cross-section are not indexed to each other.
I KNOW THAT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. THAT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I'M MAKING. Why can't you ever deal with what has been presented? I'm not interested in analyzing all the geological particulars of the State of Tennessee, I made some simple observations that are in accord with others I've made elsewhere and they hold up for the point I'm making. The cross section was intended only to emphasize the fact that the strata are not eroded internally, that the erosion occurs only on the exposed surface of the land. There is no reason to think other cross sections would show anything different in that regard but if you have one then produce it and stop making up problems that don't exist.
The cross section is on a completely different scale encompassing only the Carolina Thrust Belt on the very eastern edge of Tennessee.
IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I'M MAKING.
The map shows that as you go farther west into Tennessee, you get less and less disturbance from the Appalachian mountain building event. For instance, the large dome I referenced in my last post does not even show up on the cross section you present.
ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I'M MAKING.
And, no, there is not just one erosional event. For instance, the Cambrian rocks depicted on the geological map include arkoses which are derived from erosion of granitic basement rocks of the Precambrian. Furthermore there is a gap in the record between the Pennsylvanian rocks and the Cretaceous rocks in western Tennessee. And then, of course, there are other minor unconformities within the section that do not show up on a map of this scale. I will try to find a strat section that shows more, but most of the diagrams I find are insanely detailed and not appropriate for a discussion like this.
You are too detailed as it is. All of this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE SIMPLE POINT I'M MAKING.
As usual, the picture is a lot more complex than YECs would like.
I have no idea what "YECs would like" but the complexities ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I'M MAKING.
Perhaps more later. I have a little work to do.
Oh PLEASE don't trouble yourself. I've made my point well enough and no further input is needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 10:49 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 12:43 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 756 of 1053 (760767)
06-25-2015 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 755 by Faith
06-25-2015 11:16 AM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
There are no relevant complexities in the part I've focused on. What I've said is based on simple observation and is true as stated.
...
The cross section was intended only to emphasize the fact that the strata are not eroded internally, that the erosion occurs only on the exposed surface of the land.
Okay, so we have to exclude the rest of the state in order to prove your point.
However, I still don't see the disconcert over a section of geology in which there happens to be little erosion. So what if sedimentation is continuous for most of the Paleozoic Era? There was pretty obviously some erosion before the Cambrian and certainly some prior to the Cretaceous Period. All that is in addition to the modern erosional surface on which we live.
Your scenario of one erosional surface in the history of the earth simply does not work.
ETA: If Percy feels that we are getting off topic I am not going to pursue this any further.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 11:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-25-2015 1:00 PM edge has replied
 Message 759 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 1:10 PM edge has not replied
 Message 772 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 8:31 PM edge has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(3)
Message 757 of 1053 (760770)
06-25-2015 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by edge
06-25-2015 12:43 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
Edge writes:
ETA: If Percy feels that we are getting off topic I am not going to pursue this any further.
I realize that I'm not Percy and I don't intend to spend much time myself with Faith's amazing nonsense, but I will say that if her nonsense motivates people to post educational things about Tennessee Geology as is currently happening (I'm in Tennessee), then I'm getting my moneys worth.
I have come to see Faith for what she is here -- a way to bring reliable knowledge from the background to the foreground and a way to highlight during my education the thought processes of my intended targets.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 12:43 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 1:49 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied
 Message 766 by Admin, posted 06-25-2015 5:13 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 758 of 1053 (760773)
06-25-2015 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 739 by dwise1
06-24-2015 3:36 PM


Re: Leap Seconds Claim
Sorry I missed this post dwise1. Just saw it.
It's a lot like and related to the moon BS that they throw around. The way the the tides impact the transfer of energy from earth to moon is so freakin' cool. Understanding the part continental drift has played in it all is a really fun part of it all and something I want to touch on in my segments. This will fit in with that.
Thanks
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 739 by dwise1, posted 06-24-2015 3:36 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by dwise1, posted 06-25-2015 3:09 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 759 of 1053 (760776)
06-25-2015 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by edge
06-25-2015 12:43 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
No you don't have to exclude the rest of the state, the cross section was meant as an illustration of what I'm arguing, not to be a big part of the argument itself. As I said, if there are cross sections from other parts of the state that show something else bring them on, but my guess is this one suffices to illustrate the general situation.
The rest of your post doesn't make sense to me except that it shows your complete lack of comprehension of the point I'm trying to make. If I figure out what you are saying maybe I'll come back and answer it, otherwise I'm perfectly happy to leave things as they are.
My scenario works beautifully, really wish you could see it, but you're got all those irrelevant details blinding you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 12:43 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 760 of 1053 (760784)
06-25-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by ThinAirDesigns
06-25-2015 1:00 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
I realize that I'm not Percy and I don't intend to spend much time myself with Faith's amazing nonsense, but I will say that if her nonsense motivates people to post educational things about Tennessee Geology as is currently happening (I'm in Tennessee), then I'm getting my moneys worth.
I am far from expert on the geology of the state, but everything about it negates the premise that Faith has adopted. The fact is that the thrust belt shown in the cross section occurred in the mid-Paleozoic and did not affect the Pennsylvanian and later rocks. Not only that, but the Cretaceous rocks shown on the map are more related to development of the Mississippi Embayment in Mesozoic time. That's at least two major tectonic events prior to the time that Faith thinks all deformation occurred (that would be after all sedimentary rocks were deposited). And I'm not even getting into the Precambrian geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-25-2015 1:00 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 2:03 PM edge has not replied
 Message 771 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 8:13 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 761 of 1053 (760785)
06-25-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by edge
06-25-2015 1:49 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
So as usual I'm up against a massive interpretive fiction. Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by edge, posted 06-25-2015 1:49 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by jar, posted 06-25-2015 2:07 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 91 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 762 of 1053 (760786)
06-25-2015 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by Faith
06-25-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
No Faith, you are up against reality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 2:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 2:48 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 763 of 1053 (760789)
06-25-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by jar
06-25-2015 2:07 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
Yeah, so you all believe, without knowing it IS just a belief, a prejudice. Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by jar, posted 06-25-2015 2:07 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-25-2015 3:46 PM Faith has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 764 of 1053 (760790)
06-25-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by ThinAirDesigns
06-25-2015 1:08 PM


Re: Leap Seconds Claim
Like I said, since the next leap-second event is coming up in five days, we may see creationists raise this PRATT again.
There are several factors causing the earth's rotational speed to change, tidal forces caused by the moon being a major one. Some even cause it to speed up (eg, events causing the earth's moment of inertia to decrease, such as when an earthquake causes part of the crust to lower -- think of a spinning ice skater pulling her arms in), but the overall effect is that the earth's spin is slowing down. The question is: at what rate is it slowing down?
In the late 1970's the new NAVSTAR GPS system was a hot topic in technical and popular science magazines and people were hearing about leap seconds for the first time, even though they had been in use for the previous two decades ever since we went on the the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) standard based on atomic clocks. At the time, we were having to add a leap second about every 18 months.
The creationist originator of this PRATT, most likely Walter Brown, mistook that to mean that earth was slowing down so fast that the length of the day was increasing by a second every 18 months and then extrapolated backwards from there. In reality, their claimed rate is about 7,000 times too great. We know exactly how fast the earth is slowing down, because that is being observed and measured directly and empirically by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS, since it is formerly the International Earth Rotation Service). It is the IERS that is responsible for announcing leap seconds.
Leap seconds do not correct for the slowing of the earth's rotation, though that is a factor, but rather for the simple fact that the length of the day is currently not a whole number of seconds. The length of a second was established more than a century ago as 1-86,400th of a day, but since the length of the day has increased since then there's an extra fraction of a second that our clocks do not account for. That extra fraction of a second keeps adding up day after day until it becomes greater than half a second, at which point we need to correct the clock by adding a leap second. The goal is to keep noon UTC within half a second of astronomical noon. Even if the earth's rotation were to suddenly stop and remain the same forever after, we would still need to add leap seconds.
A commonsense refutation of the claim might be to compare adding leap seconds to adding a day for leap year. The calendar can only deal in whole days, but the year is not a whole number of days, but rather is nearly a quarter of a day longer (ie, about 365.2425 days in a year). We add a day to the calendar every four years in order to correct for the error that accumulates, not because the length of the year is actually changing.
The leap second claim surfaced circa 1979. Its classic definitive refutation was published in 1982: As the World Turns: Can Creationists Keep Time? by William M. Thwaites and Frank T. Awbrey, Creation/Evolution, Issue IX, Summer 1982, pp.18-22, reprinted at http://ncse.com/cej/3/3/as-world-turns.
Despite it's having been soundly refuted more than three decades ago, the PRATT persists. In 2002, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance attempted to engage creationists in dialog about various of their claims, starting with this one since it is so obviously and indisputably wrong. They contacted 15 web sites carrying this claim. Most ignored them and some responded but refused to make any corrections. They followed up for the next decade, finally concluding in 2011 that it wasn't worth it. The two-page essay starts at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_dialog.htm.
Here's a funny related story. A few years ago a young creationist, crazynutsx (or something like that), announced his new creation/evolution debate forum and invited us over. A few of us took him up on it. He really wasn't ready yet to take on that task. He was full of himself after having only learned what the creationists told him and knowing nothing of how those claims had been refuted long ago. He reminded me of a former creationist, Steve Rauch, who wrote:
quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical
Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution
debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
Eventually, crazynutsx abandoned his own forum and since then some Japanese youths hacked into it and have taken it over.
One of crazy's last attempts was the leap-second PRATT. Since I was very familiar with it, he was at a distinct disadvantage. It didn't help that his method of "scholarship" was to plagiarize other sources and post it as his own work. At one point I insisted that he define a term that we were using, so he plagiarized a lengthy portion of an article to support his claims. What he had posted was straight from Thwaites' and Awbrey's classic 1982 refutation of the claim. I think it was at about that point that he abandoned his own forum.
That forum is at http://creationvsevolution.freeforums.org .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 06-25-2015 1:08 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2625 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 765 of 1053 (760791)
06-25-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by Faith
06-25-2015 2:48 PM


Re: Tennessee Geologic Column Eroded
Faith writes:
Yeah, so you all believe, without knowing it IS just a belief, a prejudice. Sigh.
I have a nice hunch that the thousands of geologists and thousands upon thousands of man years of time spend digging, drilling, exploring, mapping, mining and testing the geologic structures here in Tennessee alone trumps mere belief by a good margin.
Are you experienced with any hands-on geology here in Tennessee? Any? Any at all?
The difference between prejudice and knowledge is experience.
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 2:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by Faith, posted 06-25-2015 7:34 PM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024