Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 877 (833911)
05-28-2018 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
05-28-2018 9:12 AM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
RAZD writes:
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.
Imagine how a Creationist thinks, however. To them, there is a basic understanding of what is traditional secular science and what is a mystery. They see no fiction. They are searching for something that the secular scientist is not searching for nor has been trained to search for.
They claim that secular science is blinded since the secular scientist sees no need to search any differently. The problem with their arguments is that they have no guidebook on how else to teach and show the secular scientists how to look.
Edited by Phat, : spelling error

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 44 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2018 9:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2018 6:27 AM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 877 (833922)
05-28-2018 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by edge
05-28-2018 8:51 AM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
You insist on not getting the point so I'll drop it. But I really do think if even you yourself took some time to think it through based on what I've been saying, you, even you, would have to see that the system of creating whole landscapes/time periods with particular climates and geographical features out of salt and coal found in rocks dpesn't hold together.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by edge, posted 05-28-2018 8:51 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 05-29-2018 6:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 877 (833924)
05-28-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
05-28-2018 9:12 AM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
And yet nobody is saying that the National Geographic should be providing the level of science detail that you complain is not present.
Actually it's not such a high level. As I just said to edge last night, all that's missing is a brief sentence about how the particular climate attributed to the time period was determined by the presence of salts in the Jurassic rocks, and maybe a reference to a source discussing it. That would be a lot better than just having to swallow the conclusion that a time hundreds of millions of years ago that lasted fifty million years is known to have had that particular climate. That is mystification, it's not the basic science everybody is claiming it is.
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.
Well, I qualify, had basic science courses in both high school and university, enjoyed it, was good at it; but you don't really mean that, you mean that I still believe what I was taught in the classes about evolution, and of course I no longer do.
ABE:
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 have a problem understanding at all. I just don't any longer believe what you believe.
I used to have a rather idealistic feeling about science, including evolution. Thought of it as progress in knowledge, etc. Held onto books on the subject almost as if they were on the level of the Bible, about which I knew nothing at the time. I have no lack of understanding, I just changed my mind.
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 44 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2018 9:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2018 6:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 49 of 877 (833926)
05-28-2018 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
05-27-2018 3:51 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
You make magazines sound like the Gestapo. Magazines print articles that appeal to their audience. That's as it should be and is not going to change.
Maybe I'm misrepresenting my own concerns here. It is true that I've felt cheated and misled by many articles on evolution and OE geology over the years, articles for the public since I never had an inclination to get deeper into the science questions,...
How many times does this have to be said? Magazines and newspapers for the general public don't provide this kind of detail. Why should they write articles their audience isn't interested in?
This has been explained to you many times over the years - why are you asking this question as if for the first time? Do you really think magazines like National Geographic should destroy their circulation by printing articles that wouldn't interest their current audience? And that you wouldn't understand anyway? Why?
What science magazines are you reading? Some are more scientific than others. These are, in my opinion, the best scientific magazines out there that are targeted toward the general public, ordered from most to least scientific (in my opinion):
  • Science (this is a scientific journal and most people should skip this one - I only include it here because it does contain short non-technical articles about its technical articles. It's expensive, the main articles are very technical, and they frequently require detailed knowledge of the particular field.)
  • American Scientist (maybe 25% of the articles are simple enough to be understood by anyone, another 50% can be understood by anyone willing to look things up as they go along, and the remainder can be very technical and require detailed knowledge of the particular field)
  • Scientific American (dumbed down recently - almost all articles should be understandable by anyone)
  • Science News (understandable by anyone)
  • New Scientist (understandable by anyone)
  • Discover (understandable by anyone)
  • Popular Science (understandable by anyone)
  • National Geographic (understandable by anyone)
This list isn't exhaustive, just the ones I'm familiar with - there are other science or sciencey magazines out there I've never read.
...until this forum has led me to find answers to some particular questions.
This forum has provided you a great deal of information that you almost always ignore, making up your own answers out of whole cloth based on whether they conform to your interpretation of the Bible. You have gained a bit of vocabulary but little scientific understanding.
Understand that this isn't a criticism of your rejection of scientific understandings - it's merely noting your failure, refusal or inability to understand them. To repeat the most egregious example, you don't accept that current sedimentation is adding to stratigraphic columns around the world, particularly in lacustrine and marine environments. This is definitional - it is impossible for it to not be true. It is true even if the world is only 6500 years old and the Flood was responsible for world geology. That you do not understand something so simple and obvious is representative of why you've made no progress in understanding things scientific in your 17 years here.
Otherwise I've just wanted to get a general idea of what science says about these things, and in this thread I wanted to give examples of this habit of flat out asserting an interpretation as if it were a fact. There are tons of them.
You're repeating the same criticism over and over again, but join the club - even many scientists complain about the way their science is described is the popular press and magazines. But for anyone wanting more technical information it is out there, they only need seek it out. Before the Internet your average person was limited in seeking out this technical information, but now even though many journal articles are behind a paywall there are still plenty enough freely available.
But the background of the thread is my objection to the whole idea that there are any time periods at all, that there is such a thing as a Jurassic Period, that there is such a thing as the Geological Time Scale.
Strata represent time periods - that they do not would be impossible and absurd. You should be asking whether the evidence suggests hours or eons (eons in the general sense, not the geological definition).
This makes the continual encounter with flatly asserted supposedly scientific knowledge about the ancient past doubly deceptive to my mind. Just statements I'm supposed to swallow without any reason given for it,...
You've said this several times now in this post alone. You're just following the Trump blueprint of repeating fallacies many times to make them stick in busy people's minds who haven't the time to pay close attention.
...and then later on when I've learned some creationist views I've acquired the extra cynicism of recognizing that the evidence for all of it is just a few things found in a rock.
Tell us what that evidence suggests and why? You can start with the geological structures in Jar's thread:
Over all these years at EvC (and by the way it's only been about ten overall since there were very long gaps in my presence here) I don't recall anyone pointing out this evidence I'm asking for either,...
Volumes and volumes of evidence have been posted to you over the years, you just don't read most of it, and the rest you don't understand. Already in this thread alone your reply rate is below 50%.
...the whole discussion is always just an assertion: Oh yes the Cambrian in the Grand Canyon was originally a beach with pebbles on it and such and such a climate and so on and so forth.
This is just a lie. How we know the environment of the Tapeats was explained to you many times in the Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. thread. Here's an example of an explanation of one detail by Edge in Message 845, but repeated in other posts by other people:
Edge writes:
The boulder is derived from a Shinumo highland and basically rolled, slipped and washed out on the Tapeats beach (yes, still wet) and was eventually buried.
You next asked how the boulder broke off from the Shinumo, and Edge explained that it eroded from the Shinumo hills that rose above sea level, then was subsequently buried once it had fallen to the beach. You then rejected this explanation in Message 875. As has been said many times, you don't have to accept the scientific explanation, we're long past expecting that from you, but any sentient being should have no trouble understanding it, and any honest person with a shred of integrity would not claim the explanation has not been provided. I see I even repeated it in Message 880:
Percy writes:
But that's what Edge means when in his reply in Message 879 he says that gravity caused the large boulder of quartzite to come to rest on the Tapeats beach below, once the forces of erosion and weathering caused it to break off the Shinumo hills above.
Back to your message:
I may be forgetting a very rare case or two where the evidence was seriously argued for the interpretation,...
You are exhibiting either amnesia or dishonesty on a massive scale.
...but mostly I have the impression that the Tapeats is either being called a beach or the Cambrian is being described in terms of a transgression or something or other,...
Ah, so you do remember the explanations, though in a disjointed fragmentary form.
...reifications of interpretations without any discussion of the connection between the actual evidence in the rock and the interpretation, let alone any attempt to justify this methodology.
This is a complaint with no basis in fact. Boulders are eroded off cliffs and fall onto beaches all over the world. This is from Garrapata Beach in Carmel, California, where boulders are eroded from the hills lining the coast and fall to the beach below:
So it's seemed to me I'm the only one here who mentions that the time periods are interpreted from a mere flat rock and its contents.
Many strata are not flat or uniform, they vary greatly in extent, and they all eventually pinch out or end in some way, but otherwise this is true - the geologic column was constructed from the evidence of and in the strata.
That's why it's good to get ANY acknowledgment that it is indeed the stuff in the rock that is interpreted into the time period landscape.
When has anyone denied or tried to obscure that we're interpreting the evidence of and in the strata? Could you stop making spurious and silly accusations?
A key component of our interpretations of strata is that the present is the key to the past. We know that boulders erode off coastal hills and cliffs and come to rest on the beaches below because we see it happening today. And even a person who has never seen a boulder on a beach would understand that once erosion has eroded a piece of rock off a cliff face that it has no place to go but down. Understanding erosion and gravity isn't rocket science.
And I know you mentioned one source in an earlier post, a marvelously unique recognition in my experience, about how salts and coal in the rocks indicate the climate and swampy conditions ascribed to the Jurassic period. That is RARE it seems to me. I'll go to that post next.
You are again exhibiting either amnesia or dishonesty on a massive scale.
But I also still think it's all a crock.
And your evidence-based analysis for reaching this conclusion?
Nevertheless I think it should be made a lot more explicit exactly what stuff in what rock is interpreted as evidence of features in the supposed time period. The connection should be made explicit in every case.
It has been. Many times.
Will you be upping your response rate above 50% in this thread? Will you again ignore 50% of the information provided, reject the rest, then later claim that none was ever provided?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:14 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 877 (833930)
05-28-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


Your second list
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
1. Constructive discussion.
Ha ha. Couldn't it be that it's impossible to have a constructive discussion on this subject in this place? Ha ha, of course not, has to be a fault of mine.
2. How to anchor views in facts.
No point in answering such accusations.
3. Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.
If you mean subordinating relevant facts to the Bible, sure it is.
4.Math.
Yes I'm bad at math.
5. Physics.
This I know I'm good at.
6. Walther's Law.
I don't know if I misunderstand it or not, I may very well understand it just fine, though I couldn't trust you to recognize that. In any case as I've many times said, the only thing that interests me about Walther's Law is the fact that rising sea water lays down layers of sediments.
7. That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.
RAZD showed that Walther's Law explains it, and it must also explain the Coconino whether you like it or not.
8. The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.
The claim is true and the efforts to prove it false are so beyond idiotic, in an atmosphere where the physics-challenged Boss disagrees and I have nobody to agree with me we're talking about a really weird setup that has nothing to do with science.
9. Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.
They are exactly as flat and straight as I think, only you have a problem seeing it.
10. Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.
A major stupid nitpick. It's utterly irrelevant that there are small imperfections since to the naked eye they are almost perfectly uniform and science calls them by their sedimentary names. What kind of flimflam are you trying to pull here? I'm talking about the ones that ARE called by the sedimentary names, the limestones, the sandstones, the chalks, the mustones and so on.
11. Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.
In other words I must completely abandon what I know to be true and just accept the establishment view. That is science to you. Wowsie wow. The rate at which that scenario happens in the present is ludicrous as an explanation for the abundance of fossils. Blech. Here I am having to deal with this crazy list of denigrations of my abilities just because the Boss can't think straight.
12. Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.
Navajo Sandstone isn't a stratum, Moenkapi isn't a stratum, all the cliffs of the Grand Staircase aren't strata. What a revelation.
13. Lithified soil is called a paleosol.
Golly gosh another amazing revelation.
14. Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.
Actually somebody here corrected you on that years ago and even put up a link showing that simple compaction/drying out does form some rocks. But I never made that claim anyway, all I ever said was that compaction hardens them enough to hold their shape during various kinds of erosion, even the cutting of the Grand Canyon. Have you ever worked with clay?
15. There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).
There is absolutely no reason why not, it's perfectly reasonable that after the Flood water running between layers would erode away some of them.l In some situations such stream erosion would form what are really karsts in effect. Too bad you have no ability to visualize the physical world.
16. Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.
Well it usually does knock them around quite a bit, leaving only a layer or two in many cases, but it left the whole stack in at least one case I know of. And actually it DID "affect" the surrounding strata, it pushed them up and created the Kaibab Uplift and slid them horizontally a quarter of a mile. Fair amount of effect there.
17. Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.
Gosh you are sure the champion of the Status Quo, no imagination. That beach is a ridiculous example anyway.
18. Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.
Righto. It must be that I don't "understand" these things, can't be that I disagree with them. That's all this ridiculous list is about.
19. In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.
In the year of the Flood there was only one continent and no Atlantic Ocean. In fact even according to your establishment explanation the Atlantic Ocean didn't begin to form until, what was it, the Jurassic Period?
20. Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.
There is absolutely no stratification happening today anywhere that is a continuation of the Geological Column or even like it.
21. Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.
So?
22. Life buried today could eventually become fossils.
I guess, just nowhere near the rate necessary to account for the abundance in the Geological Column.
23. Speciation does not take millions of years.
That's for sure. What's your point?
24. Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.
Gosh a Sturdy Fact if there ever was one. It's point, however, eludes me.
25. Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.
Eh? Roots and especially the deep roots of tall trees do indeed keep soil loose. Look it up.
26. The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.
I include the wolf with the whole collection of dog breeds, but if all the dogs descended from the wolf they would have left the wolf with less genetic diversity.
27. A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.
But of course I never said anything of the sort. I was looking for the best way to define the kind morphologically and it worked for some species but not others.
Well, I lost one somewhere along the way. Not going to try to correct it.
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 88 by Percy, posted 05-29-2018 10:25 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 877 (833932)
05-28-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
05-28-2018 11:18 AM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Science (this is a scientific journal and most people should skip this one - I only include it here because it does contain short non-technical articles about its technical articles. It's expensive, the main articles are very technical, and they frequently require detailed knowledge of the particular field.)
American Scientist (maybe 25% of the articles are simple enough to be understood by anyone, another 50% can be understood by anyone willing to look things up as they go along, and the remainder can be very technical and require detailed knowledge of the particular field)
Scientific American (dumbed down recently - almost all articles should be understandable by anyone)
Science News (understandable by anyone)
New Scientist (understandable by anyone)
Discover (understandable by anyone)
Popular Science (understandable by anyone)
National Geographic (understandable by anyone)
This list isn't exhaustive, just the ones I'm familiar with - there are other science or sciencey magazines out there I've never read.
SO WHAT? Why are you giving this list? Do these magazines present characteristics imputed to time periods without any clue to the evidence for their wild interpretations? That's the question, why don't you answer it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 05-28-2018 12:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2018 1:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 05-31-2018 6:56 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 52 of 877 (833934)
05-28-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:07 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
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.
This confirms what we've suspected for some time now - you never really accepted geology and evolution.
Well, but I DID accept evolution -- I wasn't reading anything about geology, that was a brand new discovery for me when I started posting here -- I accepted evolution but did have questions, and trying to track down the reasoning for it was extremely frustrating. I thought it should be available to the average interested person, I wasn't planning to get any deeper than that.
Why do you think what interested you would be of any interest to "your average interested person?" How were you expecting answers to your unexpressed questions to arrive? In the next issue of Life magazine? The lack of answers is not the fault of anyone but you and your lack of motivation to get answers. Answers to your questions were not hidden away. It's not like you ever visited a library and checked out books on evolution, which would have answered all your questions.
But, given how little you've managed to learn in all your time here it is doubtful that any source of information could have helped you. You believe the Bible trumps evidence, so what good is evidence to you? You just make up whatever you believe might be consistent with what you think the Bible says. For you evidence never enters into it. And despite all the explanations provided to you but that you've ignored, in this thread you're complaining that rarely has anyone provided any explanations. It's been my experience that you work very hard at avoiding explanations (and the people making them) when they argue against your views.
Yet another example of you avoiding explanations is the crinoid described by Moose in the Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. in Message 2568. You were very interested at first, but when explanations addressing your questions were provided suddenly it was all making "my eyes roll so hard they want to jump out of my skull," and then you stopped responding. The truth is that you're not interested in discussing evidence and explanations.
And again about magazines, you do realize that magazines are for-profit enterprises, right? They go to a great deal of effort fine-tuning their content to their audience. They are not minions of Faith's conception of what they should be printing, nor idolators of the Faith Plan for How to go Bankrupt. If you didn't get the answers you wanted about evolution, that's on you.
Evolution I no longer accept at all and never will.
Of course you accept evolution. In your view there was hyper-evolution all over creation after the flood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 877 (833937)
05-28-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
05-28-2018 12:29 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Yes I'm sure magazines print what they think represents science at the appropriate level. Unfortunately in the case of the Geological Time Scale that turns out to be pure mystification and unfair to the public.
Got a popular Geology magazine that isn't too expensive I could consider getting?
And why do you enjoy your straw man stuff so much> No I do NOT accept "evolution" by which any reasonable person would know I meant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Of course I accept MICROevolution.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 12:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2018 1:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 2:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 9:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2018 10:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 54 of 877 (833938)
05-28-2018 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:14 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
SO WHAT?
So the world isn't going to bow to your ignorance.
I guess it annoys the flat earthers that globes don't come with disclaimers that their shape doesn't conform to their dumb-beyond-the-powers-of-expression, personal beliefs too.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 55 of 877 (833941)
05-28-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:14 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Do these magazines present characteristics imputed to time periods without any clue to the evidence for their wild interpretations? That's the question, why don't you answer it?
Yes, sometimes, to varying degrees.
Sauropods in the shallows for instance:
quote:
In this case, dePolo and coauthors point out, the track-bearing layers of limestone are fine-grained, contain the shell fragments from contemporary invertebrates, and show signs of burrowing by small marine organisms. The upshot is that the dinosaur tracks indicate that the dinosaurs were walking through shallow water along the accessible portions of an ancient lagoon.
It also provides a link to the original work where you can see the exact details of how they came to their conclusions: A sauropod-dominated tracksite from Rubha nam Brathairean(Brothers’ Point), Isle of Skye, Scotland Paige E. dePolo et al

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 56 of 877 (833942)
05-28-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:13 PM


Re: The public needs to earn respect (and also be willing to learn)
Faith writes:
Any large formation made of sedimentary layers was formed by the Flood.
Given the problems with this view that have been described for you, why do you think this? Specifically, to mention just one formation, how did the flood produce this:
This is, of course, the Navajo Sandstone. How did the Flood create eolian deposits?
Even if you're going to insist on a Flood scenario it is still way past ridiculous that you insist that the flood denuded all landscapes down to bedrock. It is immediately obvious to all your fellow Floodists that not all landscapes were washed into the seas, that some had to have been left behind intact because some strata are so obviously terrestrial. You're alone in your irrationality.
Of course there's still the problem of how terrestrial strata could have marine strata beneath them, but at least as far as absurd problems you'd have one less.
I don't know how the reef was formed.
Of course not.
Half Done wasn't formed by the Flood but by the volcanism after it.
You mean Half Dome, which is granite, an intrusive igneous rock. It isn't volcanic in origin.
That's all you're getting from me.
We didn't get anything from you except ignorance, erroneous declarations and typos, though I guess for a mere two-line post that is a significant achievement.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 877 (833943)
05-28-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:54 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Got a popular Geology magazine that isn't too expensive I could consider getting?
You might consider geology blogs such as
Learning Geology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 58 of 877 (833946)
05-28-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:47 PM


Faith writes:
1. I disagree that believers in the Flood need to try to deal with all the questions about how the Flood did this or that, and agree with mike the wiz on that subject.
Does anything about this attitude seem unscientific to you?
That's why I wasn't interested in that thread.
So it has nothing to do with your inability to answer the issues Jar raised?
I think it will eventually be conclusively shown beyond a doubt that the Flood did occur, even shown with a minimum of evidence,...
Given that the Flood explains nothing about the geology of the planet, the same as a century ago (which means that there's been no progress in at least a hundred years), why do you believe this? Isn't it just empty bravado?
...so that all the other questions become irrelevant for that purpose, questions to be answered in the new context that assumes the Flood occurred, rather than as evidence for its occurrence.
"Assumes" is a very poor choice of words. Science will never assume the flood occurred. It will have to be demonstrated with evidence.
Since this is how I approach the subject,...
You approach the subject unscientifically.
...most of your questions are also irrelevant,...
Given that they concern evidence that geology explains, why do you think they're irrelevant?
...but since you continue to nag me about them I will make some comments.
Pressing you to address the issues instead of running from them is not nagging. Of course, sticking to the topic is never in your interest, so or course you attempt to distract attention from the topic through a constant stream of accusations (like nagging) hoping to prompt a response that will give you an excuse to ignore that person.
From 1 to 4 I don't know.
Here's 1 to 4, and of course you don't know:
  1. In stratigraphic columns, why does radiometric age increase with increasing depth?
  2. Why does radiometric age also change laterally across a strata?
  3. Why are radiometric isotopes older than 80 million years completely missing, something that could only happen if they'd had at least 4 billions years to decay?
  4. What causes magnetic sea floor striping, and why is it consistent with radiometric ages?
Don't you think your inability to address these basic issues reflects very poorly on your proposed Flood scenario?
  1. In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
This is an overgeneralization since there are some very odd creatures in the recent periods. The following is from Historical Geology which I believe was written by our own Dr. A:
I've emphasized some of the oddities:
Quaternary
Marked by the existence and spread of modern humans and the decline and disappearance of many groups of large fauna extant in the Neogene.
Neogene
Skull of a Smilodon (commonly known as a "saber toothed tiger"). Contains recognizable horses, canids, beaver, deer, and other modern mammal groups. The Neogene also contains many large mammalian fauna no longer extant: glyptodonts, ground sloths, saber-toothed tigers, chalicotheres, etc. First hominids found in Africa.
Paleogene
Marked by the diversification of mammals and birds. Among the mammals we see the first that can be easily identified with modern mammalian orders: primates, bats, whales, et cetera. Similarly representatives of many modern bird types are identifiable in the Paleogene, including pigeons, hawks, owls, ducks, etc. Now-extinct groups of birds found in the Paleogene include the giant carnivorous birds known colloquially as "terror birds".
But there are a lot of "modern" creatures in the Paleogene with a few strange ones, but even more weird creatures above it in the more "recent" period. Mammals and birds, but not "modern" ones.
Why do you think you have an argument here? And why do you think the creatures mentioned are odd?
Anyway, odd or not, the issue is that fossils are increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth in the geologic column, not increasingly odd. You're going to have to try again.
Reading on in the list there are a few I probably have an answer to but now I'm tired from putting together the above reference so I will come back to it.
One reference and you're tired? Oh my! Anyway, when you do try to provide an actual answer to #5, you might try answering #6 at the same time, since they're closely related:
  1. 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?
Keeping a running count, so far you've addressed 0 of the 27 issues.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 59 of 877 (833948)
05-28-2018 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
05-28-2018 12:54 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
If you were really interested in honesty you would admit that the Flood is the best explanation for the geological and fossil records only in the sense that it’s the least bad explanation that fits with YEC dogma.
As an actual explanation it is utterly useless.
Edited by Admin, : Re-render the post - the single and double quotes had somehow gotten screwed up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 12:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 60 of 877 (833949)
05-28-2018 2:08 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
Faith writes:
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.
You should have some respect for magazines' ability to judge their readers' level of interest in detailed explanations.
--Percy

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 65 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:00 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024