Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
24 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 76 of 206 (781485)
04-04-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by JonF
04-04-2016 3:01 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Apparently decay is off topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 3:01 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 77 of 206 (781486)
04-04-2016 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by JonF
04-04-2016 2:43 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Well carbon 14 is one type of radioactive decay. However I won't destroy your claims here since it is off topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 2:43 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 78 of 206 (781487)
04-04-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jar
04-04-2016 2:45 PM


[/quote]
quote:
There is no such thing as "The Bible™"
This is not a thread on humor, sorry. I see lots of bibles for sale.

quote:

Topic.

Can we get a post that is on topic?


Yes, someone mentioned layers and the life fossilized in them. I mentioned that this involved assuming and believing nature was the same and therefore all life would be represented by what could fossilize. I have no reason to believe that man or most animals would or could have fossilzed. It seems to be a bare assertion to claim they could!

Edited by starlite, : No reason given.

Edited by starlite, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 04-04-2016 2:45 PM jar has not yet responded

    
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 79 of 206 (781488)
04-04-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
04-04-2016 2:47 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
So how would we know if man existed if there can be no remains? After all God said to dust Adam would return, not to fossilized remains.

Edited by starlite, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 2:47 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 80 of 206 (781489)
04-04-2016 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bliyaal
04-04-2016 2:50 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Any man or lion then?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bliyaal, posted 04-04-2016 2:50 PM Bliyaal has not yet responded

    
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 81 of 206 (781490)
04-04-2016 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by JonF
04-04-2016 3:01 PM


[/quote]
quote:
Nope, it's a conclusion.

We have lots of evidence that radioactive decay was constant in the past. Radioactive decay involves deeply fundamental properties of the universe and any significant change would leave many widespread traces in the present.


Name one solid piece of evidence?

quote:

Plus the fact that enough AND to make YEC possible would have melted at least the surface of the Earth and killed every living thing, including those on any ark, from radiation inside their bodies.
Explain what you mean exactly.

quote:
The RATE group acknowledges this, and has no solution. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay
?? Did I claim ANY decay, let alone accelerated?? Can you prove that assertion?

quote:

Most (definitely not all) radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent to daughter and other significant measurements and facts.
I agree. However what that measure really represents is the issue.

quote:
Since it's obvious that all you know about radiometric dating is some vague notion of parent/daughter ratios, your questioning is of no significance.
Hey just because I mention something in a sentence doesn't mean that is all I know.

Edited by Admin, : Fix first quote.

Edited by starlite, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 3:01 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 04-04-2016 5:39 PM starlite has not yet responded
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 04-05-2016 8:37 AM starlite has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 82 of 206 (781491)
04-04-2016 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by starlite
04-04-2016 5:22 PM


Moderator Notice
Hi Starlite,

You won't be permitted to carry on in this way for much longer.

Please, no replies to this message.

Edited by Admin, : Change subtitle.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 5:22 PM starlite has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 206 (781526)
04-04-2016 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by starlite
04-04-2016 1:37 PM


Has YEC Changed That Much?
I consider so called flood geology to be absurd and pathetically weak. For someone to toss it out in this day and age as something that represents creation believers is silly. Maybe 20 years ago...

Well, there are plenty of leading YECs, and of course the rank and file, who still cling to flood geology. Could you name some prominent YECs who agree with your views, or direct us to their websites? Thank you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:37 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 10:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1169 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 84 of 206 (781527)
04-04-2016 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
04-04-2016 10:02 PM


Re: Has YEC Changed That Much?
No. I don't pay much attention to all that. Thanks. Would you not agree that believers ought to look for some better explanation than a single flood for all the geologic record?

Edited by starlite, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2016 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2016 11:21 PM starlite has not yet responded
 Message 87 by AdminPhat, posted 04-05-2016 3:35 AM starlite has not yet responded
 Message 88 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2016 3:54 AM starlite has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 85 of 206 (781532)
04-04-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by starlite
04-04-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Has YEC Changed That Much?
No. I don't pay much attention to all that.

Well if you don't pay any attention to what your fellow-YECs believe then perhaps you shouldn't make posts about what they believe.

Would you not agree that believers ought to look for some better explanation than a single flood for all the geologic record?

I would agree; and I would add that this better explanation is to be found in geology textbooks, along with much useful and pertinent information such as that the Earth is not in fact young.

I cannot say whether your own take on YEC is more or less silly than the more usual brands of Young Earth Creationism, since your presentation of it has been extremely sketchy. Perhaps you could start a thread about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 10:33 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 86 of 206 (781538)
04-05-2016 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:18 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Maybe they were deposited faster than they think?

From the context, by "they" I assume you mean YECs. Which would be very odd, since YECs think that the geological layers were deposited extremely fast. Some simply say that all the layers were deposited by the Noachian Flood, while others try to distinquish between pre-Flood, Flood, and post-Flood deposits. Though there doesn't seem to be much agreement among them as to which is which.

BTW, geologists can tell how fast or slowly geological layers had deposited, just as they can tell how fast or slowly molten lava or magma had solidified (by the size of the crystals). Faster depositation is indicated by larger particles, since it takes swifter water to carry them, whereas slower depositation is indicated by a lack of larger particles, something that slower water cannot keep in suspension. Go to a university library and refer to Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, "Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures": American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869 -- a creationist back in the hey-day of CompuServe offered it to support his claim about poly-strate trees with roots extending into coal reams, whereas the article actually says the opposite, that the roots do not extend into the coal layer beneath them. That also illustrates a basic problem with creationist sources: they will cite scientific sources when they had never ever looked at those sources, but rather their actual sources were other creationists who presented those sources which they likewise had never ever looked at, etc, etc etc (read my page on the ICR's moondust claim for yet another real-life example).

My thought is that each geologic layer represents something closer to a few centuries, than millions of years.

And when those layers number in the multiple-tens-of-thousands (eg, Green River Shale)? Let's see, 20,000 times 300 hundred (a couple is two, a few is three or four, etc) yields 6 million years, which does constitute "millions of years." And that's not counting the layers below those layers. Years ago in another forum, a creationist tried to use the tired old sea-salt claim (that the amount of salt in the oceans would place the age of the earth in the millions of years), which I disproved such that he had to admit it was wrong (which did not keep him from using it again a few months later on somebody else, which constitutes deliberate lying on his part). I challenged him on claiming that the earth was millions of years old when his party line was no older than 10,000 years, to which he responded that "at least it's not BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD as science says.", meaning that his goal was attacking science, which he apparently perceived to be an enemy.

i don't know who you are nor any of your history, but I would tend to agree with someone else's assessment that you are 14 years old. I think that you have recently learned or at least been told of a lot of creationist claims which has gotten you fired up to venture forth on-line to go toe-to-toe with your enemy. Let me offer you some scripture:

quote:

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)



I will also offer you some advice from a former YEC, Scott Rauch:
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.

And here's a real-life event I personally witnessed. Circa 1991, a YEC opened a fossil shop in a local mall; he displayed the accepted ages of the fossils while displaying poster-sized creationist propaganda, mostly from the ICR (eg, their misquoting Darwin about the evolution of the eye). That YEC also organized a few informal debate nights in the mall's community room, but I guess I sabotaged his efforts by informing local members of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The rules were simple: anyone could step up and present his case. That was when I first learned that creationists have no clue what "creation science" is nor teaches. One young creationist in his early 20's stepped forward and announced confidently that he had the latest scientific evidence for creation that would just completely blow the "evolutionists" away: the speed of light has been slowing down. Immediately the "evolutionist" half of the audience erupted into simultaneous uncontrollable laughter and attempts to explain to that poor clueless creationist what exactly was wrong with the decade-old bogus Setterfield claim. The poor kid just stood there in shock; he could not comprehend what had just happened. Well, this is what had just happened:

quote:
{the evangelical Christian community} gave {him} a gun loaded with blanks, and sent {him} out. {He} was creamed.

As a follow-up to that, there are some quotes from Answers in Genesis, a leading "creation science" organization. Back in 2002, they published an article, not longer available, presenting some really bogus claims that they wished creationists would not use (eg, Adam's missing rib, the sun's missing neutrinos, "why are there still monkeys?", etc). A highly popular creationist, Kent Hovind, fired a hostile response to that article, since he made extensive use of the claims that they exposed as being bogus. Dr. Sarfati responded, which I saved. Since then, that has all rotated off of their site, though there are some follow-up similar pages if you should care to look for them. Here is my synopsis of Dr. Sarfati's response to Kent Hovind :

quote:

As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we said—that using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’."

...

"But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?"

...

" ... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were ‘admirable’ and ‘showed integrity’ in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments."


Those are not the only quotes we have from leading creationists.

If you would follow ICR's moondust claim above to my pages about the moondust claim, you will see my basic complaint: the creationist community recruits new creationists and teaches them the claims, but they teach them nothing of the history of the claims, included how they have been refuted decades ago. In the case of the moondust claim, the ICR "officially" disclaimed it more than two decades ago and yet almost every single one of their books still presents that claim as being true. P.T.Barnum's famous quote is: "There's a sucker born every minute." That quote is SOP ("Standing Operating Procedure") for the "creation science" community. You get recruited, you get indoctrinated, you are kept ignorant of the truth.

If you are indeed about 14 to 16 years old as you appear to be, then the claims you have been taught were all soundly refuted decades before you were born. That is why we call them PRATTs: "Points Refuted A Thousand Times".

Did you just get involved with "creation science" a year or a few ago? I got involved circa 1981. Many of this forum's members have been involved just as long, nearly as long, or long enough. Several "anti-creationist" members had themselves started out as young-earth creationists, but then they dared to examine what they believed and now they strongly oppose "creation science".

I would sincerely love to discuss some young-earth claims with you. I also want to discuss with you your understanding of evolution and how it's supposed to work.

Here's the situation. Creationists see everything in a certain way. Normals also see everything in a certain way. Those two ways do not seem to intersect. Creationists end up making certain claims/arguments based on how they see things. Their claims/arguments are complete nonsense to all normals. And yet creationists refuse to explain their position.

Why do creationists refuse to explain their position? I have conducted a 20-year email correspondence with a local young-earth creationist, an admitted young-earth creationist. An interesting aspect of that correspondence is that despite my repeated attempts to get him to present any kind of young-earth claim, he has steadfastly refused to oblige me. Certainly he believes that the earth is young, no older than 10,000 years. Certainly he believes that he has scientific evidence for that. So why does he absolutely refuse to present any such evidence or to discuss the question? Because he knows all too well that all his claims are false?

Do you have some claims that the earth is no older than 10,000 years? The earth's rate of rotation, which is diminishing? The "shrinking sun" claim? The loss of the sun's mass at nearly 5 million tons per second?

To quote Joan Rivers: "Can we talk?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:18 PM starlite has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 04-05-2016 8:07 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 87 of 206 (781539)
04-05-2016 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by starlite
04-04-2016 10:33 PM


Facts vs Beliefs
Lets all review the Forum Guidelines. I am going to begin policing the creationists who conflate beliefs with science and limiting them to the Faith & Belief, Bible Study, and Coffee house areas of the forum. I may in some cases promote posts to free for all, but I must police the science threads and keep them strictly scientific.

I too have been guilty of bringing faith & Belief into the science forums, so if anybody sees me messing up, let another Mod know.

Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 10:33 PM starlite has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 88 of 206 (781541)
04-05-2016 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by starlite
04-04-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Has YEC Changed That Much?
Not really responding to this one irrelevent post of yours.

Do you have something that you want to say? So why don't you say it?

Is what you want to say different from what other creationists have said? So why don't you say it?

Why don't you say it?

Why don't you say it?

I really don't know how else to say it. Why don't you say it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 10:33 PM starlite has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 89 of 206 (781546)
04-05-2016 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by dwise1
04-05-2016 2:51 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
dwise to starlite writes:

i don't know who you are nor any of your history, but I would tend to agree with someone else's assessment that you are 14 years old. I think that you have recently learned or at least been told of a lot of creationist claims which has gotten you fired up to venture forth on-line to go toe-to-toe with your enemy.

That would explain a lot. I hope it's the right explanation. Thanks.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2016 2:51 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 90 of 206 (781549)
04-05-2016 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by starlite
04-04-2016 5:22 PM


Re: [/quote]
Nope, it's a conclusion.
We have lots of evidence that radioactive decay was constant in the past. Radioactive decay involves deeply fundamental properties of the universe and any significant change would leave many widespread traces in the present.

Name one solid piece of evidence?

I linked to a brief explanation of several. One really good one is the Oklo reactor, a natural nuclear reactor that could only exist when the ratio of 235U/238U was as it was 1.7 billion years ago, and the ratio of isotopes found show that the rate of decay was the same back then. See Natural nuclear fission reactor.

Plus the fact that enough AND to make YEC possible would have melted at least the surface of the Earth and killed every living thing, including those on any ark, from radiation inside their bodies.

Explain what you mean exactly.

You can't figure it out? Each radioactive decay produces heat and radiation. No matter how often it happens. Faster decay means more heat and more radiation. I explained it with calculations at Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.

The RATE group acknowledges this, and has no solution. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay

?? Did I claim ANY decay, let alone accelerated?? Can you prove that assertion?

You did claim some decay. I don't recall you claiming accelerated decay. I was pointing out that a group of all the YECs who really understand radiometric dating concluded that AND was the only possibility for YEC time scales to be true. The quote I provided proved it; lead in zircons can only be the result of radioactive decay, and either it represents real passage of time decaying at today's rates or it represents a much smaller passage of time decaying at a much higher rate. The latter "possibility" doesn't work because of the heat and radiation problem.

Most (definitely not all) radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent to daughter and other significant measurements and facts.

I agree. However what that measure really represents is the issue.

As the RATE group pointed out, either it represents real passage of time with decay at today's rates or passage of much less time with decay at much higher rates.

Since it's obvious that all you know about radiometric dating is some vague notion of parent/daughter ratios, your questioning is of no significance.

Hey just because I mention something in a sentence doesn't mean that is all I know.

But when you make statements that only someone ignorant of radiometric dating could make, you reveal your ignorance. E.g. your claim that initial daughter product is a possible problem. In pretty much all major methods it isn't. You posted that because you don't know anything about radiometric dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 5:22 PM starlite 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