Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 877 (833884)
05-27-2018 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
05-27-2018 4:27 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
You accepted evolution based on what?
Based on the standard public school indoctrination along with their inadequate explanations, the way most people accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2018 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 877 (833885)
05-27-2018 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
05-27-2018 4:25 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
I didn't say anything about respecting the reader's "opinion," but they should be given the basic respect for their intelligence of not expecting them to buy into a flat assertion without any justification as if they were children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 05-27-2018 5:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 2:08 PM Faith has replied
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2018 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2283
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 33 of 877 (833886)
05-27-2018 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:56 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
so you expect any popular science article to also include all the background evidence and theory on the topic at hand?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 5:05 PM DrJones* has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 877 (833887)
05-27-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by DrJones*
05-27-2018 5:00 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
OF COURSE NOT. I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark and have enough motivation to look up more information at the public library or whatnot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 05-27-2018 5:00 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 9:10 PM Faith has replied
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 2:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 35 of 877 (833890)
05-27-2018 6:44 PM


Predictable Hawaii
I wonder what YEC creationists think about the current volcanism in Hawaii? Why does all the action these days seem to be on the south-eastern end of the chain? It seems to be a nice combination of historical science explaining the location and relative weathering of the existing islands (and the Hawaiian-Emporer seamount chain), and also offering a prediction of Loihi, now under construction.

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 9:17 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 36 of 877 (833894)
05-27-2018 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


Faith writes:
I would like to talk about what evidence geologists have for their Geological Time Scale landscapes which are based on a stack of rocks with dead things in them that are best explained by the Flood.
Faith, I believe I’ve mentioned Dan Wonderly to you before. He was a very gracious man who I had the pleasure of meeting years ago. Wonderly wrote a couple of books to try to explain some of the evidence for an old earth in layman’s language (God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, and Neglect of Geologic Data).
One of the evidences that he liked was coral reefs. His argument goes like this:
1) coral reefs are formed by living organisms that grow on the submerged skeletons of their dead ancestors.
2) we have no reason to think that the basic laws of physics, chemistry, and biology would have been different in past ages, so we believe that basic coral metabolism would have been the same rate then as it is now.
3) actual growth rates of coral reefs in the Pacific have been measured at up to 8mm per year, but 1-2 mm per year is more normal. Also, as a coral reef forms, there will be periods where the coral is above water and no coral will grow.
4) coral reefs in the Pacific (at the Eniwetok Atoll) exist more than 4600 feet thick.
5) at the maximum measured growth rate, this gives a lower bound (minimum) age of more than 175,000 years for the Eniwetok Atoll.
More details here.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:32 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 37 of 877 (833895)
05-27-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-27-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
OF COURSE NOT. I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark and have enough motivation to look up more information at the public library or whatnot.
Come on, Faith, be honest. You ask for the Goldilocks level of information so that YOU can be personally satisfied, and yet thousands of children find enough motivation from the very sources you decry to pursue education and careers in science. What makes you so special?
And really, you have already told us that nothing will sway you, so the chances of you being motivated to look up more information are nil.
Why should anyone waste their time satisfying you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 5:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 877 (833896)
05-27-2018 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Capt Stormfield
05-27-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Predictable Hawaii
I wonder what YEC creationists think about the current volcanism in Hawaii? Why does all the action these days seem to be on the south-eastern end of the chain? It seems to be a nice combination of historical science explaining the location and relative weathering of the existing islands (and the Hawaiian-Emporer seamount chain), and also offering a prediction of Loihi, now under construction.
I'm pretty sure that Faith does not see this as evidence of anything.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-27-2018 6:44 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 877 (833899)
05-27-2018 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by kbertsche
05-27-2018 8:17 PM


Corals
Faith, I believe I’ve mentioned Dan Wonderly to you before. He was a very gracious man who I had the pleasure of meeting years ago. Wonderly wrote a couple of books to try to explain some of the evidence for an old earth in layman’s language (God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, and Neglect of Geologic Data).
One of the evidences that he liked was coral reefs. His argument goes like this:
1) coral reefs are formed by living organisms that grow on the submerged skeletons of their dead ancestors.
2) we have no reason to think that the basic laws of physics, chemistry, and biology would have been different in past ages, so we believe that basic coral metabolism would have been the same rate then as it is now.
Environmental conditions would have been much more favorable to living things before the Flood to make a difference in rate of growth. That doesn't involve any differences in physics, chemistry or biology, just circumstantial things like temperature and food availability.
3) actual growth rates of coral reefs in the Pacific have been measured at up to 8mm per year, but 1-2 mm per year is more normal. Also, as a coral reef forms, there will be periods where the coral is above water and no coral will grow.
4) coral reefs in the Pacific (at the Eniwetok Atoll) exist more than 4600 feet thick.
5) at the maximum measured growth rate, this gives a lower bound (minimum) age of more than 175,000 years for the Eniwetok Atoll.
More details here.
Again it doesn't sound like he took into account the usual idea that the pre-Flood environment was much more favorable for living things than conditions after the Flood, which should have been true for corals as well as everything else. There are other time arguments anyway, tree rings and varves and so on so just add corals to the list.
But I try to stick to arguments I think could prove the Flood, and arguments I understand well enough for that purpose, and try to avoid getting into other things. That means I have to prove the Flood with a few arguments if I can and all the rest would have to be dealt with later.
In any case I don't want this thread to become another Flood thread. I want to get back to the Time Periods argument when I can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kbertsche, posted 05-27-2018 8:17 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 2:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 877 (833900)
05-27-2018 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by edge
05-27-2018 9:10 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory. There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location. You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.
AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing. Maybe that's why the pontifical method is preferred.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 9:10 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 1:04 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 43 by edge, posted 05-28-2018 8:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 05-28-2018 9:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 3:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 877 (833901)
05-27-2018 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


Your lists
6. In stratigraphic columns, with increasing depth why are there first no mammals, then no dinosaurs, then no reptiles, then no amphibians, then no fish, then no multicellular life?
I don't know
7. Why do you think the Grand Staircase region's geology to be representative of all geology worldwide?
Because I believe it can be shown the Flood caused it all.
8. If the Paleozoic layers were already present when the Supergroup layers tilted, why do the faults associated with the Supergroup extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers?
Because of the horizontal movement I believe occurred at the Great Unconformity.
9. If the Supergroup layers actually tilted, where did all the missing cubic miles of rock go?
I believe it became the schist though some is what is called "erosion."
10. If the Grand Canyon had been cut suddenly then the canyon walls would be vertical. How do you explain the sloping walls of the Grand Canyon?
I don't think it had to have been cut vertically. The receding Flood volume would have been greater at first, cutting a wider area, then narrower as it cut deeper into the area and its level dropped.
11. Why is the rate of slope retreat at the Grand Canyon consistent with an age of millions of years?
I don't know.
12. What is your evidence that all tectonic activity worldwide occurred after deposition of sediments?
Various cross sections from different locations.
13. Given the randomness of floods, why has no fossil ever been found in the wrong strata evolutionarily?
I don't know, For some reason the layers are consistent.
14. How did the flood leave behind cross bedded sand dunes with animal tracks in the Coconino?
why are you asking these questions I've answered many times before? Those aren't sand dunes, they are sand that the water cross bedded. Animal tracks occurred between waves and/or tides.
15. How did the flood transport and deposit sediments that include burrows, termite nests, worm holes, etc.?
It didn't, it overran the nests and buried them, perhaps moved them some distance, burrows and holes were formed by the animals between waves or tides.
16. What is the definition of kind?
Animals that share a basic genome.
17. How can you argue about kind without a definition?
If you notice, I am usually in the process of defining it in the argument.
18. Why, if you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do you think there are exceptions to God's claim to have "destroyed all living creatures" in Genesis 8:21? [/qs]
I read it as referring to air-breathing land-dwelling crfeatures. You may count sea creatures, I don't think the Bible does.
19. How did the ocean keep all the sedimentary types separate?
Well, there are examples of that happening in the Berthault film I posted sometime back. Walther's Law demonstrates that the rising sea deposits clearly separate sedimentary layers. What's the problem?
20. Since floods only sort continuously by size/density of sediment and do not create sharp contacts, what is it about strata that says "flood" to you?
Mostly their scale I think, their hugeness. but Walther's Law dealsz with layers that look like they have sharp contacts.
21. How did the deposition of sediments by a series of waves leave no evidence of that process behind?
Why should it? Each layer covered up the one under it. And besides I don't think ALL the layers were deposited by wavers, I think when the water was deep enough the layers precipitated out.
22. If the flood rains washed all the land sediment into the sea, how was life left behind on the denuded landscape to leave tracks when waves deposited new sediments?
Obviously it didn't wash ALL the land into the sea. I've answered so many of these already, what a tedious project this is.
23. Why do you think Bertault's views relevant since his experiments deposited sediments at an angle of 45 and required a flume?
It demonstrates that water makes neat flat sedimentary layers, the specifics aren't important at this point. ABE: In fact early in the film a flooding creek was shown to make a neat stack of layered sediments; whereas it was being argued that "floods" don't do that. /ABE
24. Since 3/4 of the globe is currently covered by water, how is a truly global flood that covers the remaining quarter much different?
Don't understand the question.
25. Why did no fishermen survive the flood?
Probably ran for cover when the rain started?
26. How was the original salinity of the ocean restored after the Flood?
Don't know how much salinity there was before or after and neither do you.
27. If the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanos, where is the evidence that many undersea volcanos erupted 4500 years ago?
I don't know if the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanoes, I think it rather unlikely myself.
This is tedious because I've already answered many of these. Also the next list. I will have to come back to that.
And meanwhile all this stuff about the Flood is really OFF TOPIC here so I don't want to continue it after I've answsered the lists.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 9:47 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 42 of 877 (833904)
05-28-2018 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:37 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
quote:
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.
Since this behaviour is just normal journalism - and the articles are written by journalists, not scientists - it doesn’t seem to prove any such thing.
quote:
There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location. You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.
It would take more than a sentence to explain even one item of evidence. See my first post in the thread where I try to distill a popular article. A short paragraph for each piece of evidence, and for multiple pieces of evidence would seem the minimum.
And you want that material repeated every article that deals with the situation in prehistoric times.
And what makes you think that everyone else wants that level of detail? There’s nothing dishonest about reporting generally accepted scientific views.
quote:
AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing. Maybe that's why the pontifical method is preferred.
This thread is doing a good job of showing that isn’t true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 43 of 877 (833908)
05-28-2018 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:37 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.
Your opinion is noted.
There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location.
I am sorry that things don't go the way you would like them.
But to indicate that it makes any difference to you is ridiculous.
You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.
I'm sure that you are an expert on how to write science articles. Maybe you should contact all of the popular science outlets directly.
AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing.
I'm sure you would know.
Maybe that's why the pontifical method is preferred.
Anything would be preferable to uninformed bloviation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 10:34 AM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 44 of 877 (833909)
05-28-2018 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
But others on the thread are saying the opposite, that my information is from a popular source where we shouldn't necessarily expect to find scientifically literate readers, so I'm directed to more scholarly sources where the background information is available.
And yet nobody is saying that the National Geographic should be providing the level of science detail that you complain is not present. When I talk about scientifically literate, I mean people that have had high school science and have a basic understanding of what is science and what is fiction.
But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity, factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have about a time millions of years ago. And that shouldn't be the case with scientifically literate readers either if science is what it is claimed to be.
The public is being presented with a journalists article and not one required to be a scientific article. It is like a picture reconstruction of a fossil. Accepting the evidence of an old earth is part of what scientific literacy is based on -- there is so much such evidence that it is delusional to think otherwise has any support.
he NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point. ...
Typical of a magazine article. If you want a more scientific treatment you are looking in the wrong place, and then using that as a straw man argument to discredit science -- that is your (rather silly and hopeless) point.
... There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. ...
There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of scientific articles that flat out validate both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution to such an extent that they are generally accepted as the explanation for the past. There is no "Young Earth Geology" that stands up to the evidence, there is no alternative theory to evolution that stands up to the evidence.
That you have had trouble understanding this is more about you than about how material is presented to you, certainly you have been given many examples of the scientific reality since you began posting, and it is evident that the problem with understanding is not in the explanations.
... . I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.
Yeah, journalists are such nazis forcing their articles down your throat and requiring that you accept them without question.
As has been said, they are writing for an audience. Based on generally accepted science, and not cater to a small segment of the population that doesn't accept scientific reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 05-28-2018 9:47 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 45 of 877 (833910)
05-28-2018 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:37 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
perhaps it all boils down to what we should be looking for. Strict Creationism starts with the premise that God exists, the Bible is His revelation, and the Creator wrote His name and signature on our hearts and on and in the rocks. Thus, one would seek evidence of such a signature. You seem to think that one-day such evidence will be found and we all will slap our heads in amazement and bow to the Creator joyfully and willingly---which for the sake of argument is theoretically possible. Currently, however, for folks like edge, the science that he was taught is his most reliable tool. He has little economic or spiritual incentive to change his approach to observations within nature when he has already invested so much of his life into learning the tried and true disciplines which are his very livelihood.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024