Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9032 total)
51 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,966 Year: 2,612/14,102 Month: 277/703 Week: 98/158 Day: 8/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 27 of 206 (781336)
04-04-2016 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:49 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
The same evidence we have for any depositing. What evidence (besides fantasy radioactive decay based dating) is there for slow deposit?? The door swings both ways
You have no idea how geology works, do you?

Lets give you a little hint or two. First, in geology not everything is deposited slowly. You read way too many creationist untruths about geology.

Second, let’s give you another hint on how geology works. From there, how geology is applied in practice. You know, what creationists love to call 'operational science'.

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:49 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 28 of 206 (781340)
04-04-2016 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:49 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
The same evidence we have for any depositing. What evidence (besides fantasy radioactive decay based dating) is there for slow deposit?? The door swings both ways
Nope, it doesn't. I have personally been involved in exploration programmes for mining companies where they change their mining plans on the part of the deltas where they start and go along the part of the deltas they mine. All underground. No magic floods involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:49 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 30 of 206 (781343)
04-04-2016 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by starlite
04-03-2016 11:20 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
starlite writes:

No it isn't. Get over it. As for the so called dates you obtained, they would have zero meaning if the daughter material was already here when decay started right?

Nope, not at all. That's not how it works at all.

Have you ever taken a mineralogy course or have you been reading creationist nonsense?

Let's give you a hint, starlite. Creationists never tell the truth about everything. Creationists always tell untruths. Untruths are all they have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:20 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 34 of 206 (781347)
04-04-2016 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by starlite
04-03-2016 11:32 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
starlite writes:

Where's the beef? You think what exactly? You think the daughter material could not have been there because it is now produced by decay? Or..? Stay away from whatever taught you stuff.

Actually, my beef is that you've got no idea what radiocarbon dating involves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:32 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:42 PM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 35 of 206 (781349)
04-04-2016 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:49 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
This one still is very, very funny.

The same evidence we have for any depositing. What evidence (besides fantasy radioactive decay based dating) is there for slow deposit?? The door swings both ways.

Is this guy really so uneducated or just not very bright?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:49 PM starlite has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 9:19 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 124 of 206 (781627)
04-06-2016 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:43 AM


Re: Flood model
Faith writes:

My admitted ignorance has never extended to any of the facts that would disqualify me from having an opinion about the particular things I have opinions about. But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

Actually, you don't have any clue what's going on in the natural science called geology. You keep on ignoring reality. Again. From http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=article...

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

So, Faith, if you are so sure that your belief in the magic fluddy is right, please provide the 'operational science' where you show that your magic fluddie occurred. You know, accurate working models and all...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 126 of 206 (781629)
04-06-2016 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
04-06-2016 6:43 AM


Re: Flood model
This one was funny:

Faith writes:

But of course just being a creationist makes me arrogant since that role pits me against standard geology.

What the heck is 'standard geology'? Those geologists studying some rocks in Siberia? Those studying some rocks near Cherdyn in the Urals? Those studying some rocks near Mount Wilson Village in the Blue Mountains? Those geologists studying some rocks on Marion Island? Those geologists studying some rocks around Farmington, New Mexico? Those geologists studying some rocks around El Alamein?

And they all independently came to the conclusion that the rocks they studied were very, very old?

You don't make any sense, Faith.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 6:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:37 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 129 of 206 (781632)
04-06-2016 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
04-06-2016 7:01 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
PaulK writes:

I'm pretty sure that Austin regards the bed as being deposited under water, so there would be no need for anything to be washed up on land

Indeed Steve Austin did write that the bed was deposited under water.

Steve Austin wrote:

Steve Austin writes:

I believe the [nautiloid] bed was formed by an underwater mud flow… The water was full of mud, what we call a slurry, and so was much denser than the surrounding water. The slurry rushed down the steep slopes of the underwater mountains, gathering speed like an avalanche. And it careered across the ocean floor as fast as a semi on the freeway….As the avalanche swept past it trapped the nautiloids and carried them along.

According to Steve Austin, those Nautiloids were deposited on the ocean floor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2016 7:01 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 131 of 206 (781634)
04-06-2016 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:37 AM


This one is funny:

Faith writes:

When geologists study rocks they study them within the theory they carry around with them everywhere.

When geologists study rocks they actually do study them within the theory that basalts are igneous rocks. Geologists do carry that theory about basalts as being igneous around everywhere in the world. That's a geologists' worldview; basalts are igneous rocks!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:51 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 135 of 206 (781638)
04-06-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:40 AM


Re: Austin's Redwall nautiloids
Of course it was on the "ocean floor," it was during the Flood. Everything was being moved in sediment-laden currents or bands or levels of water that were carried over the land -- and that ended up deposited ON THE LAND.
Nope. Austin claims that it was deposited under water in a magic flood.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 139 of 206 (781644)
04-06-2016 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-06-2016 7:51 AM


Basalts ARE igneous rocks, nobody disputes that, it's fact, not theory. I'm talking about the OE theory that geologists carry around with them everywhere. It colors everything they study, which is only to be expected.
Actually, no, the origin of old basalts is a theory. Today, basalts are formed by volcanic processes. In geology, specialists use the basic principle that the present is the key to the past. Basalts today are formed by volcanic processes; thus geologists deduce that the basalts formed in the past were also formed by volcanic processes. In short; the present is the key to the past.

That principle works very well in economic geology; every single exploration and mining company uses that principle because it works.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 7:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2091
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 142 of 206 (781647)
04-06-2016 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
04-06-2016 8:53 AM


Re: Events seen round the world --- change leaves evidence
This one is really, really funny.

Faith writes:

Worldwide strata indicating worldwide water deposition according to Walther's Law

Those 'worldwide strata' missed my country altogether.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 8:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-06-2016 9:02 AM Pressie 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 © 2021