Summations Only

Yes I was wrong about sand not absorbing water without being soaked in it, but the point of all this is to get a layer or a formation like the Wave out of a dune, which is what you guys claim, and none of this supports such an idea. It's interesting though that there is hard rock within dunes a few feet down and at the bottom -- which they think could be the result of water seeping upward. Not that it matters how I guess, but you still have to get the dune into a layer or an arch or the Wave.

Or if it doesn't relate to the topic as I understand it I just have nothing to say in response. This does not follow and doesn't make sense and I can't fathom why you think it does. Just like evolution can be discussed without reference to the question of the origin of life, creationist theories about life and the world can be discussed without reference to the Creator, and in fact must be. I don't think this semantic distinction is helpful even if precise, because we're talking about the different theories between evolution and creationism and THAT distinction is necessary. Well you are imposing a definition on the argument that no creationist accepts and I have no reason to accept it even for the purpose of discussion. I just don't get the point of it. Not the definition creationists would accept. Creationism is the study of the world from the perspective of Biblical revelation. But that's not how creationists think about it. The methods of creation? God spoke it into existence, what else is there to say? Science starts with the characteristics of the creation itself, not its origin. None of this computes for me, sorry. evolutionist biology says that, not biology. Seems to me you are just redefining everything out from under us creationists so we aren't allowed to say anything at all or have our own definitions or think our own thoughts about what science is. How can I be wrong about that? You seem to want to define things to MAKE me wrong, I see that, but I nevertheless have my own way of seeing it and your definition is what's wrong. I answered all that to my satisfaction, apparently not to yours. No, you are talking about MECHANISMS of evolution when you talk about selection and so on, not the origin of life, which is what would correspond with the Creator in the comparison you are making. Creationists also talk about mechanisms, that's the science part, we rethink the mechanisms to some extent, which follows from our theoretical framework about WHAT was created and when, and how historical events affected these things, not HOW it was created or by Whom. If you want to talk about the origin of life in the Primordial Soup or whatever, then it would make sense to talk about the Creator, but that is not what this thread is about. The Creator is not mentioned in the OP. Falsifiability is mentioned and I've dealt with that some here in the distinction between historical and hard science. I also supported Dawn's argument from desigh. But I guess I've gone off on my own issues that may be somewhat off topic. Otherwise I don't see any real contradiction going on here, and rereading the OP doesn't help me understand what you are trying to say, which still makes no sense to me. Sorry.The rest of your post will have to wait. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's funny. What you had to say about something is irrelevant to whether or not I said it and whether or not you were listening. Which clearly you weren't. And aren't. Really?

quote:

---

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

---

Of Pandas and People, early version.

quote:

---

{Scientific Creation hypothesises: }The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator

​

The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

​

Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
...
Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator.
The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.

---

Henry Morris.That's what I'm asking about. Sorry to hear you are in the wrong thread. I know, and that's my point. They don't think scientifically and they don't act scientifically. How do you know? How does divine speech create things?Otherwise its just an assertion. You are wrong that you are demonstrating science in that whatever you are demonstrating isn't science.Looking for empirical support for some of your ideas is not sufficient to be doing science. You are the one that wants to tell me that Creationism isn't a theory about Special Creation. Your answers are fine, but they aren't science and they don't address the questions I raised. Correct. And I want the MECHANISMS of creation. Your theory posits that the creation and design of life past present and future all happened at the same time by the same agent. Mine doesn't. If they do, I'd like to hear the mechanisms and the theoretical framework. If its a scientific theory that is. We don't have to talk about the origin of life, I'd rather not.I'd rather take a look at the science of evolution vs science of creationism.If you are telling me that creationism is not in contradiction with evolution that would be odd.You believe that the diversity and complexity of life can be explained by a creator. I'm trying to get your theory explaining this, one that is scientific. You don't have one, as you say. Which means there is no creation science.There is a Creation Story. And you are trying to find things that match up with the evidence, but you haven't got past 'a designer was involved' which is not in dispute here. It can hardly be called an alternative to evolution if it agrees with it but just says less. Ah, so the Creation doesn't require a Creator. No problem. I've been trying to do the hard science. I've conceded that the fossil record is a jumbled mess because of the flood. I don't need history. Apparently you do, because you don't have any theory.

Yes it does. 'Cos you can see that lithification of aeolian dunes is taking place, and without a magic flood. Which is what geologists claim. The lithified layer is a layer.Arches and formations like the Wave are caused by erosion, as you would know if you'd been paying attention.

We are now over 600 posts in this thread and still without any evidence of The Science in Creationism but with posts by Dawn and Faith proving what they are doing is NOT science and cannot be science. Sorry Faith but that process would get any scientist fired immediately and is 100% the wrong way to determine truth or reality.You have no model that explains the details seen in fossils.You have no model that explains the details seen in the aeolian sand dunes.You have no model that explains the White Cliffs of Dover.There is no science in Creationism or Flood Geology which is why both have been abandoned by all scientists for several hundred years.In the layers with dinosaurs not ONE human ever got killed. In the layers with humans not ONE dinosaur got killed.Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.And in addition, you still have presented no evidence of The Science in Creationism and have admitted several times that what you do is not science and that you will refuse to actually do research unless it is research that agrees with your interpretation of the Bible.

The Nobel Prize was established a long time ago, and the only categories are: Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature, Peace, and Economic Sciences.They can't award a prize for Astronomy, Geology or any of the other similar sciences as they don't have an award category for them. This does not make them second-tier sciences.

Ignoring inconvenient evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas is practicing deception. Doing so to convince yourself is practicing self-delusion.You are admitting to us that you suffer from self-imposed delusion.Treatment is available and is quite painless. You can be cured.

The "If I decided not to know about it it's not relevant" method is just another example of the "Not Science" method.JB

Sand usually has a high drainage rate (hydraulic conductivity) assuming limited compaction and low ratios of silt and clay. It is all about the size and connectivity of the pores. Bigger particles have bigger pores and more likely to be connected pores so the water flows more easily - straight paths and less friction.Sand - 4.74 in/hr
Loam (sand, silt mix) - 0.13 in/hr
Clay - 0.01 in/hr
Source: Rawls, W.J. et al., (1983). J. Hyd. Engr., 109:1316. Water in the form of dew or rain falls on the soil and percolates in. The surface material is dissolved (for lack of a better term) by the relatively pure water. The now mineral laden water percolates down into the soil column. Given the limited volume of water available, the water will reach a point where the entire volume of water will be adhered to the surface of the soil pores (if the water table is too deep to reach). Movement of the water stops.From this situation, the dissolved minerals will bind to the soil due to evaporation of the water, absorption into the soil chemistry, etc.The deposited minerals will bind the soil particles together and gradually fill all the pores.One result is a sedimentary rock layer called caliche.
Caliche - Wikipedia Note that the deposition of the dissolved minerals won't change the basic structure of the soils, just fill the pores. I think this would be one method for lithifying a dune into sandstone with visible cross bedding.As the pores fill, less water will pass through the layer of forming caliche, so the soil above will hold the water. As that water evaporates, etc, the caliche layer will grow up. With enough time and water, the entire surface soil layer can turn into caliche. Edited by 14174dm, : No reason given.Edited by 14174dm, : Just can't leave it alone

At last, the signed confession.

But that isn't what I said. I'm not studying an entire field because my topics are limited and I read what's pertinent to the topic. Nothing to do with ignoring evidence. All creationists have their own area they focus on and not others. In fact all scientists of any stripe do, all evolutionists as well.

I don't consider Geology or Astronomy "second tier science" at all, I consider evolution and the old earth to be unprovable theories built out of conjecture that overlap lots of sciences. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So, geology is a first-class science, but the old earth is unprovable?Also, chemistry is fine but the existence of atoms is a fairy-story ... ?

Very interesting, thanks.

That is in fact very interesting but the processes involved will never turn dunes into strata or into the shapes mentioned. Those are rocks clearly soaked in water. It's a lump within a dune, not a layer. The sand has to be deposited first, and then they get eroded. The Wave looks like it had to have been formed by rushing swirling water, the arches seem to have been deposited in lumpy twisted form with thick and thin parts so that erosion carves away the thinner and weaker parts, leaving the thicker and stronger.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.