Summations Only

The strata are identical as to their basic slab form. The blob and shaped sedimentary rocks all look like they had been soaked in water.Immersion in water to cover it is the necessary condition to lithification.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Everything you said was irrelevant, false or the product of prejudice. And I have many times made the distinction between historical and true science quite accurately. It's not my own idea either, it's a creationist observation.I laid out important distinctions in my last post to vimesey, Message 601, and the distinction is quite clear from the fact that your list of Nobel Prize winners in Message 460 doesn't include anybody doing historical/prehistoric science.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, strata are like strata in that they're strata. Given that you think that, not onl about all sedimentary rocks, but about all conceivable sedimentary rocks, this has no significance whatsoever. No.---How about you answer my questions now?* What would a rock look like if the water involved in its cementation was not part of a magic flood produced by a lunatic genocidal wizard who lives in the sky?* For example, if wind-deposited dunes were to be lithified, but not by magic flood water, what would that look like?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. But you have not, in fact, succeeded in making the distinction. You just want to. For example, when pressed you admit that it is "true science" to say that there were once living ceratopsians, although this is manifestly historical science.If you would like to take another run at it, feel free. Uh ... Faith ... there is no Nobel Prize in geology or paleontology. (Though I would point out that the first name on the list of 72 is Luiz Alvarez, who besides being a physicist discovered what killed the dinosaurs). Nonetheless, all these people, who do what you admit is "true science" think that evolution is true science and creationism is crap. This would be suggestive to a mind more open than yours.

Mineral-carrying water has to penetrate the whole rock so it has to be wet through.

quote:

---

HBD, the point wasn't to come up with a rigorous definition of science, it was just to object to the theme song here that creationists are doing religion, not science, the point being that if we come up with a true understanding of the physical properties of the world we are doing science and not religion.

---

To list the problems with this:First, science does have methods, and if you follow some other method you are not doing science. At the least you would have to show that your methods are reliable (and they obviously aren't).Second, it has not been demonstrated that creationism has come up with a true understanding of the physical world.Third, by setting up certain beliefs as unquestionable fact regardless of what the scientific evidence might say creationism is clearly anti-science.Finally, your own objections to sciences that come up with conclusions you don't like become irrelevant. So long as those conclusions are true, they would be doing science by your definition. And since their conclusions are far more likely true than yours, the odds are rather against you.

quote:

---

Nothing you've said in your last two posts relates to what I was saying.

---

And there is an example of the failure of your methods. Declaring facts that contradict your claim to be "irrelevant" is hardly a good way to find the truth. Making up excuses to pretend that you are right is not an attempt to find the truth - it is an attempt to cling to error.

Having rainwater seeping through sand dunes is different from them being "immersed".---How about you answer my questions now?* What would a rock look like if the water involved in its cementation was not part of a magic flood produced by a lunatic genocidal wizard who lives in the sky?* For example, if wind-deposited dunes were to be lithified, but not by magic flood water, what would that look like?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I gather having rainwater seeping through dunes is the current unproven hypothesis for how dunes became rock?Does the Sahara get no rain at all? Is that the going theory why the sand there remains unlithified?I'd suggest that rain doesn't penetrate THROUGH a dune, probably not even very far into the dune, and it's always being dried out by the constant wind-driven shifting of the sand.AND, you have an idea how rainwater penetrating a dune is going to turn it into a slab like the strata? Or the swirly Wave?Got any dunes somewhere that are in process of turning into rock? Probably not, right? Just dunes and rocks and the theory that assumes the one turned into the other. Not that they couldn't turn into rock if they got soaked enough constantly enough but that wouldn't produce anything like the strata or the formations of the Colorado Plateau.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We know that it rains in the desert. This is proven. No, don't be stupid. You think unlithified sand is impermeable to water?Do you think that sand is impermeable to all water, for example magic flood water, or only to real water? Unlithified strata turn into lithfied strata by a process of lithification; and unlithified strata which exhibit cross-bedding remains cross-bedded after lithification. You see how easy it is to explain real things in terms of real processes? Yes. All deserts get some rain.Got any invisible wizards?---How about you answer my questions now?* What would a rock look like if the water involved in its cementation was not part of a magic flood produced by a lunatic genocidal wizard who lives in the sky?* For example, if wind-deposited dunes were to be lithified, but not by magic flood water, what would that look like?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Anyone interested in the diagenesis of aeolian sandstone could do worse than to read this. Warning: contains facts.

It's a guess. Googling the subject hasn't found me the answer. I know from experience that sand worked into garden soil improves drainage, i.e., absorption of water, but that has to do with the mixture of different sized grains, sand's larger grain providing spaces for the water to be drawn down through the smaller-grained clay and other soils that water doesn't easily penetrate. So my guess is that water doesn't easily penetrate a dune which is ALL sand, and the smaller the grain the harder it would be for the water to penetrate. So I'm guessing it would mostly run off and not penetrate. Now, dunes in a very heavily rainy area, say Seattle, might eventually get soaked, but dunes are usually in desert areas of course, where the rainfall is too small to have an effect. Unlithified dunes will not turn into strata unless they are drowned in water that flattens them into strata. Show me the rock. I will not answer your rude questions.

Read a couple pages. Interesting that they may lithify at their base from absorption of water.Nothing to suggest that the whole dune ever turns into a rock let alone a layer, but I'll read more tomorrow.

Even sandstone is permeable to water, Faith. Sand certainly is. But you know how you made that up? See my link above. Your evasion is noted.

And not by being "drowned in water that flattens them into strata." Are you going to concede that you're wrong now? Of course not. Duh.

Accepted. I've made 28 posts prior to this one some to you arguing differently. Not one whole post. Shows that you weren't reading. Requires. Then there is no science in Creationism. Exactly. That's just science. Creationism is not a needed word if you want to just discuss the creation. Studying creation is called science.I already know there is science in science.I am interested in Creationism specifically.Which posits a Creator is responsible. No, for implying I am delusional and frustrating like I just said in the post you are replying to.
I did not impute things to you that you did not say. That's just you getting upset and interpreting something I said incorrectly. Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation."I'm asking about the methods of divine creation. How it works. I'm asking to provision the science part to the theory that God did it. So far all I've seen isa) Biology exists
b) Evolution sucks
c) A flood happened.None of these things supports the central thesis of Creationism. The last one is history. The history doesn't follow from the theory because there is no theory. So this isn't science. I haven't even read it. I'm talking about this thread. The science of the designer of life is 'biology'. Nobody disputes biology is a science. Creationism says the designer is God. Biology says 'mutation plus selection' is the designer. I know, I was trying to show you are wrong. Apparently not, but its there from the outset:

quote:

---

Your argument seems to be that some (all?) alleles are pre-designed (even the new/observed ones?). You have no mechanism, no evidence some intelligent designer exists, no way to differentiate designed and non-designed alleles other than begging the question. It doesn't look good, it certainly isn't science.

---

Nor mine. The context of this thread is all that matters. Creationists theory that is in contrast with evolutions theory is that a Creator did it. That's why its called Creationism. This would be like me talking about evolution without talking about variation or selection or any logical reasoning about getting from these to what we see.You'd say I was bonkers to consider it and if I tried, it wouldn't really be about evolution. I read the OP. It's hardly deviously cunning of me. Out of the blue?

quote:

---

You have no theory

---

quote:

---

Let's agree that life is designed.

​

The question that separates us is therefore, What is the nature of the designer?

​

Intelligent
or mindless?
You need to provision evidence that it is intelligent.

---

quote:

---

We need an explanation for the recognized design.

​

Evolution has a pretty darn good one. Creationism has done a less stellar job.

---

quote:

---

How did the design get there? Is the design still happening? Why did the designer design life? Why do the designs seem to fall into the patterns they do based on space and time? Why is the eye this way and not that way? You know, the science bit of science.

---

quote:

---

And 'Ice' implies an ice maker. The more interesting question is, is the ice maker a mindless process or is there a Jack Frost?

---

quote:

---

The flood doesn't give you a creator. It doesn't provide evidence that all claims in the Bible are true. A flood may conveniently sweep some of evolution's evidence away, but it doesn't provision you with anything in return. So that's why I'm happy to concede it, and why you don't tend to see me in flood/geology debates.

​

Evolution is not just a story about the past. It's not just 'natural history'. It turned out that that's where the evidence led.

---

It's literally all I've spoken about! Thanks. It's simple when someone proposes they have a scientific theory that is an alternative to evolution, but they never provide details of their theory or any evidence for any of the entities their theory must have just based on the simple summary we have.The Science of Genesis is not the science of Creationism. Sorry, but I'm looking for some science, not someone trying to use scientific ideas to prove a historical event that simply washes away evidence of historical events.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.