Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 7:01 PM
151 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 149 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,700 Year: 2,737/19,786 Month: 819/1,918 Week: 106/301 Day: 24/54 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   The 3 catch cries of uniformitarian geology are equally well explained by the Flood
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 43 (25367)
12-03-2002 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by edge
12-03-2002 3:56 PM


Lithification : The layers will flow toward 'the stream' will they? What if our layers are the flat beds comprising at least the entire Paleozoic? Keep working on the kindergarten flood story and maybe you'll disprove it.

History of geolgoy: Exactly. The flood was accepted a priori by Christian scientist but they never came to the scientific conclusions that creationists since the 1950s have come to becasue they didn't know that layers could form rapidly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by edge, posted 12-03-2002 3:56 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 12-04-2002 12:16 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4293 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 32 of 43 (25373)
12-03-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 5:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

I think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.

And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.



So they were living on them while they were still soft? How did that work? How long did it take all that limestone that the Egyptians used to build the pyramides to "dry"?

I have been to Mt. St. Helens twice since the eruption. The "sediments" were not exactly laid by water. First the largest landslide in recorded history occured then there was a massive lateral blast. There was water of course both from melting glacier and of course the Toutle River cut through the flowing lahar. Have you walked out on those sediments around the volcano? If you try you can dig them up with your bare hands though it is best to use gloves. I didn't see any layers of limestone or sandstone in what I dug up. How about you?

There are layers from where the lahar cut through unconsolidated ash deposits from a few large and countless small eruptions that have occured over the past 20,000 years but I don't see how that helps your model.

It does not matter how fast some layers may have been deposited. In many place around the world there are layers that could not have been deposited rapidly or by a flood and they are in between layers you claim to have been flood deposits. Evaporites are only one example. Some others have been discussed here as well. I am still waiting for you to tell us how the flood could have possibly "deposited" the Grand Wash Dolomites in a year and I don't think your answer for the chalk deposits was any where near adequate. I think if you do the calculation you will find that heat from the chemical reactions required to deposit all the supposed flood deposited limestone and dolomites in a year will also cook the earth to death.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 5:57 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:29 PM Randy has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 43 (25374)
12-03-2002 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Randy
12-03-2002 6:23 PM


Randy

Your expectaitons are that it wont work.

My expectations are that it will.

We are both biased.

However, I know that I can carefully argue that the majority of the layers could have been laid rapidly and that is sufficent for me. Your problematica are no different than that for any theory.

Macroevolution is all problematica!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Randy, posted 12-03-2002 6:23 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Randy, posted 12-03-2002 6:55 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4293 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 34 of 43 (25377)
12-03-2002 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 6:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Randy

Your expectaitons are that it wont work.

My expectations are that it will.

We are both biased.

However, I know that I can carefully argue that the majority of the layers could have been laid rapidly and that is sufficent for me. Your problematica are no different than that for any theory.

Macroevolution is all problematica!


Ah the old false dichotomy. Macroevolution is totally irrelevent to this arguement.

I can argue based on arguments that you have been unable to refute and will never be able to refute that there are some layers that could not have been laid down rapidly. You have shown no evidence that any of these layers were necessarily laid down by a worldwide flood. Again it does not matter if 9 of out 10 layers could have been laid down "rapidly"(and in my opinion your evidence is really not all that good for many of them). The presence of layers throughout the geologic column that could not have been been laid down rapidly or during a flood shows that none of the layers were laid down by a worldwide flood. Combing this with all of the other falsifications of the flood myth leads me to my bias. I am biased in favor of reality you are biased in favor of an ancient myth.
Randy
PS This is likely to be my last post for about a month.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:29 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:59 PM Randy has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 43 (25378)
12-03-2002 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Randy
12-03-2002 6:55 PM


Fine

You have religious-like confidence in science whereas I have confidence in the Scriptures and see science as a wonderful, but fallible, tool.

Your primary error, in your own words, is thinking that science = reality. Science actually only gives us raw data and interpretations.

Have a good conference.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-03-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Randy, posted 12-03-2002 6:55 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Randy, posted 01-01-2003 4:53 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 43 by doctrbill, posted 01-01-2003 9:31 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 36 of 43 (25383)
12-03-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 5:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I think you need to go on an excursion to Mt St Helens and tread the water laid sediments there. And it's only been 20 years.

And why should those in the middle east hav noticed sediments 'disappearing'?! They were drying not disappearing.


Why didn't they say 'drying' then?

{Fixed quote structure - AM}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 5:57 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 37 of 43 (25392)
12-04-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 6:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Lithification : The layers will flow toward 'the stream' will they? What if our layers are the flat beds comprising at least the entire Paleozoic? Keep working on the kindergarten flood story and maybe you'll disprove it.

The orientation of the beds is not material here. They are water saturated, soft, post flood sediments. They have no strength. So how do you get steep canyon walls?

Your model is by nature a kindergarten model. On close inspection, it disproves itself.

quote:
History of geolgoy: Exactly. The flood was accepted a priori by Christian scientist but they never came to the scientific conclusions that creationists since the 1950s have come to becasue they didn't know that layers could form rapidly.

However, they did not make the mistake you do in extrapolating from some layers forming rapidly to all layers forming rapidly. They were actually more logical and scientific than you. You will note that they abandoned creationism. Why do you think that was?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:04 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 4:23 AM edge has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 43 (25533)
12-05-2002 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by edge
12-04-2002 12:16 AM


Edge

You may be quite right that the walls sagged and collpased in a wet sediment way. This could still have left a large canyon with sagged walls. After lithificaiton and 4500 years of conventiaonla erosion we get hard sediment fracturing and removal of the slipped material.

You can call our stuff 'illogical' but you haven't pointed out what's actaully wrong wiht our sceanrio. The only thing you do is point to a minority of problematic beds. You never address the bread and butter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by edge, posted 12-04-2002 12:16 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by edge, posted 12-05-2002 9:36 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 39 of 43 (25655)
12-05-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
12-05-2002 4:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You may be quite right that the walls sagged and collpased in a wet sediment way. This could still have left a large canyon with sagged walls. After lithificaiton and 4500 years of conventiaonla erosion we get hard sediment fracturing and removal of the slipped material.

Nope. If this happened the walls would not be as near to the river course as they are. As I mentioned earlier the canyon rims would probably be scores of miles away.

quote:
You can call our stuff 'illogical' but you haven't pointed out what's actaully wrong wiht our sceanrio.

I just pointed out another problems above. If you tried reading my and others' posts, you would understand the arguments against your scenario.

quote:
The only thing you do is point to a minority of problematic beds. You never address the bread and butter.

LOL! What minority are you talking about? And why do you have any problematic beds at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-05-2002 4:23 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:40 AM edge has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 43 (25674)
12-06-2002 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by edge
12-05-2002 9:36 PM


^ Maybe the width of the Grand Canyon is just right for our mechaism. The walls are clearly far too far away for any of your mechanisms. The catastrophist that I am can't believe the mainstream offerring of catstrophic flow due to a broken dam cutting GC out of hard sediments!

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by edge, posted 12-05-2002 9:36 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 9:30 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4451
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 41 of 43 (25713)
12-06-2002 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tranquility Base
12-06-2002 2:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Maybe the width of the Grand Canyon is just right for our mechaism.

Nope. You can make wild assertions all you want, but this will not make your wishes come true. In fact the soft sediments that you have eroded must have supported canyon walls even steeper than the present ones if you scenario were correct.

I am so glad that you have revolutionized geomechanics, though. I am sure that we can do away with all of our modern safety rules for construction in unconsolidated materials.

quote:
The walls are clearly far too far away for any of your mechanisms.

How so? Another unsupported assertion. You seem to be getting a bit desperate.

quote:
The catastrophist that I am can't believe the mainstream offerring of catstrophic flow due to a broken dam cutting GC out of hard sediments!

So, you have degenerated to making arguments of personal incredulity. Well, the catastrophist that I am just can't believe that the entire geological record was laid down in a year. So there!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-06-2002 2:40 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4293 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 42 of 43 (28252)
01-01-2003 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 6:59 PM


I have returned from my conference in New York my stint as a visiting Professor at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok and am partly recovered from the trip back so I thought I would reply to TB’s last post to me before I left.

quote:
You have religious-like confidence in science whereas I have confidence in the Scriptures and see science as a wonderful, but fallible, tool.

Your primary error, in your own words, is thinking that science = reality. Science actually only gives us raw data and interpretations.


I am confident that the million or so varves in lake Baikal took a long time to form because of Stoke’s law and I have done the calculations to demonstrate this in the past as well as Reynold’s number calculations showing that the sedimentation will obey Stoke’s Law. I am confident that water won’t condense from vapor without releasing its latent heat because of the first law of thermodynamics and that evaporates won’t form from sea water or flood water without evaporation because of well known facts of phase behavior. Is this a religious-like confidence? I don’t know. It’s not based on an ancient myth like your confidence in your particular interpretation of scripture but on scientific facts.

I would guess that you have confidence in the conclusions of science in virtually every other area and only doubt them where they conflict with the myth you feel so constrained to believe. When you are sick do you go to a Priest for an exorcism or does your religious like confidence in science cause you to go to a doctor instead? If you marry or are married and your wife has a baby will you isolate her for a week after a boy child or two weeks after a girl child as scripture demands in Leviticus 12 or will you rely on a religious-like faith in modern science and bring her home from the hospital when the doctor says it’s ok? Do you think the earth is fixed and immobile and that the sun goes around it each day as scripture says or do you have a religious like confidence that the earth revolves around the center of mass of earth-sun system(which is inside the sun)? Do you use science or scripture in your work?

The idea that YEC can somehow be derived by legitimate interpretations of scientific data is in my opinion one of the big lies of YEC. The flood myth can only be "supported" by “interpretations” that ignore great masses of the data, twist or ignore some of the laws of science, use a long stream of ad hoc rationalizations that often conflict with each other and rely on logical fallacies, most often the fallacy of hasty generalization. Though you clearly don’t realize it your posts have demonstrated this over and over.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Randy

[This message has been edited by Randy, 01-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:59 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 810 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 43 of 43 (28271)
01-01-2003 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
12-03-2002 6:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base: I have confidence in the Scriptures and see science as a wonderful, but fallible, tool.

If you have confidence in the Scriptures then you have confidence in a wonderful, but fallible, tool of communication; and additional faith in the a wonderful, but fallible, group of scholars and clergymen who translate and interpret them.

The Scriptures have been translated in a variety of ways, interpreted in a great variety of ways, then revised and reinterpreted with ever increasing variety.

Hearing, writing, preserving, translating, interpreting, and revising are the works of men, and men are notoriously fallible. A real god would see to important communications in a timely and unequivocal manner would he not?

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-03-2002 6:59 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019