|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Expound. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The strata are identical as to their basic slab form. So, strata are like strata in that they're strata.
The blob and shaped sedimentary rocks all look like they had been soaked in water. Given that you think that, not onl about all sedimentary rocks, but about all conceivable sedimentary rocks, this has no significance whatsoever.
Immersion in water to cover it is the necessary condition to lithification. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Everything you said was irrelevant, false or the product of prejudice. No.
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Immersion in water to cover it is the necessary condition to lithification. No. Mineral-carrying water has to penetrate the whole rock so it has to be wet through.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Mineral-carrying water has to penetrate the whole rock so it has to be wet through. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Having rainwater seeping through sand dunes is different from them being "immersed". 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I gather having rainwater seeping through dunes is the current unproven hypothesis for how dunes became rock? We know that it rains in the desert. This is proven.
Does the Sahara get no rain at all? Is that the going theory why the sand there remains unlithified? No, don't be stupid.
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. 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?
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? 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?
Got any dunes somewhere that are in process of turning into rock? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Anyone interested in the diagenesis of aeolian sandstone could do worse than to read this. Warning: contains facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You think unlithified sand is impermeable to water? 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.
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? 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? Unlithified dunes will not turn into strata unless they are drowned in water that flattens them into strata.
Got any dunes somewhere that are in process of turning into rock? Yes. All deserts get some rain. Show me the rock.
How about you answer my questions now? I will not answer your rude questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's a guess. Even sandstone is permeable to water, Faith. Sand certainly is.
Unlithified dunes will not turn into strata unless they are drowned in water that flattens them into strata. But you know how you made that up?
Show me the rock. See my link above.
I will not answer your rude questions. Your evasion is noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Read a couple pages. Interesting that they may lithify at their base from absorption of water. And not by being "drowned in water that flattens them into strata." Are you going to concede that you're wrong now?
Nothing to suggest that the whole dune ever turns into a rock .. Of course not. Duh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
OK, sorry for the tone then Accepted.
but this thread is not about the Creator and it IS frustrating to have someone make a whole post saying it is. I've made 28 posts prior to this one some to you arguing differently. Not one whole post. Shows that you weren't reading.
Creationism implies a Creator Requires.
but it's not about the Creator Then there is no science in Creationism.
it's about the created world which is the subject of science. 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.
Unpleasant and unfair to object to your imputing things to me I didn't say? 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. No. As the title says, the thread is about Creationism, not the Creator. 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 is a) Biology existsb) 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 don't recall participating much on that thread I haven't even read it. I'm talking about this thread.
Design implies a designer but the design is discussed as a scientific point apart from the designer. 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 thought I was demonstrating science in creation in accordance with the topic. I know, I was trying to show you are wrong.
I also apparently had no idea what you were doing. Apparently not, but its there from the outset:
quote: The context of the former thread wasn't in my mind Nor mine. The context of this thread is all that matters.
and you were including the Creator and I objected rightl 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.
That's all I know, and this whole discussion is out of the blue for me, no idea where it came from, the history of it anything though apparently you've been keeping close track. I read the OP. It's hardly deviously cunning of me. Out of the blue?
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: It's literally all I've spoken about!
Well, that was easy. I object to a false idea of yours and you win the debate. Hooray. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024