Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
54 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,086 Year: 2,732/14,102 Month: 397/703 Week: 50/168 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4562
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4562
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4562
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 91 of 206 (781572)
04-05-2016 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by starlite
04-03-2016 11:32 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Please read this explanation of isochron dating so that you can learn how dating is really done, contrasted with the simplistic strawman that the creationists have taught you.

For that matter, please spend some time at www.talkorigins.org reading about the other creationist claims you've been taught. Most of those claims had been made by 1980 and they had all been soundly refuted at that same time. Of course, your handlers will never tell you about that.

Remember: the creationists are lying to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:32 PM starlite has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by JonF, posted 04-05-2016 12:16 PM dwise1 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