|
Author
|
Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
|
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 884 days) Posts: 921 Joined: 12-26-2011
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 241 of 341 (656466)
03-19-2012 1:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 238 by PaulK
03-15-2012 3:17 AM
|
|
Re: Looking for info on scientists in ID camp
Except that it turns out that the objections didn't have much merit... From what I have seen, the anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes. I have seen objection after objection go unanswered.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 238 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2012 3:17 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 884 days) Posts: 921 Joined: 12-26-2011
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 242 of 341 (656467)
03-19-2012 1:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
01-15-2012 7:49 PM
|
|
Re: the flood
Seashells on mountain tops. This may seem counter intuitive, but there are several basic problems with seashells on mountaintops that show it was not a world wide flood event: The sediment where the seashells are found have evidence of mature marine ecosystems that would need decades to produce, more than could possibly occur during a couple hundred days with normal growth behavior; There are multiple layers of such deposits, not a single event, and different layers have different organisms that show evolution from one layer to the next; floods do not produce mountains, plate tectonics does, with current recorded movement consistent with the long development of mountains; floods pile debris in low spots, all jumbled up, not sorted on mountain tops; different mountains have different ages, and the marine growth on them come from different eras of evolution of life on earth, consistent with the mountain ages; there is not one thing I am aware of that is consistent with a world wide flood lasting a couple hundred days at most. These problems cannot be resolved without invoking magic and made up scenarios that are just ad hoc inventions with no empirical basis. Wasn't the earth covered with water at the beginning of the archean? That qualifies as a flood to me. Also, if the preflood earth had no oceans, today's oceans would be prime evidence of such a flood.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2012 7:49 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Looking for info on scientists in ID camp
From what I have seen, the anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes. I have seen objection after objection go unanswered. You can see objections to all sorts of things go unanswered so long as you are careful never to make the objections within earshot of people who know the answers. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: the flood
Wasn't the earth covered with water at the beginning of the archean? That qualifies as a flood to me. Also, if the preflood earth had no oceans, today's oceans would be prime evidence of such a flood. And this relates how to RAZD's argument that " the flood of Noah is impossible"?
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 4014 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: the flood
foreveryoung writes: Wasn't the earth covered with water at the beginning of the archean? That qualifies as a flood to me. Also, if the preflood earth had no oceans, today's oceans would be prime evidence of such a flood.
Firstly: sure there was a lot of water - but no, not a global flood: there was still land present. Secondly: oceans are not floods. Thirdly: the Archean was over 2,500,000,000 years ago and humans did not exist.
Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005
|
Re: Looking for info on scientists in ID camp
Maybe you might want to present those objections. Or maybe you don't really know any.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 18000 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.5
|
Re: Looking for info on scientists in ID camp
quote:
From what I have seen, the anthropogenic global warming theory is full of holes. I have seen objection after objection go unanswered.
Really? I see it as undeniable that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a result of human activity, that global warming is occurring and that the there are excellent reasons to exoect the first to contribute to the second. I also suspect that you mean that you have not seen the answers to the objections - which does not mean that they do not exist, only that your favoured sources do not report them.
|
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 286 days) Posts: 897 Joined: 03-02-2006
|
|
|
Message 248 of 341 (656488)
03-19-2012 9:13 AM
|
|
|
A quick reminder to users of this thread that it is not the place for debate. If someone has a verbose answer or wishes to discuss the answers, they should consider the merits of proposing a new thread.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 03-19-2012 9:22 AM | | AdminModulous has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005
|
foreveryoung
Yes I understand and agree but the random crap that foreveryoung spews needs to be addressed. If we do not address this gish gallop of crap we give the impression that he is actually saying something of substance. A new thread is futile as he will not present any arguments to support his assertions.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 286 days) Posts: 897 Joined: 03-02-2006
|
|
|
Message 250 of 341 (656496)
03-19-2012 10:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 249 by Theodoric
03-19-2012 9:22 AM
|
|
Re: foreveryoung
Yes I understand and agree but the random crap that foreveryoung spews needs to be addressed. Actually, as it turns out, no such need really exists  That is to say: if replying to foreveryoung puts you breach of the guidelines of this thread it is recommended you ignore it. Let’s try and avoid dogpiles against gallops — but only in this thread. abe: I'm keeping an eye on foreveryoung in case he tries to (further?) abuse the nature of this thread. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 249 by Theodoric, posted 03-19-2012 9:22 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: the flood vs creation?
Hi foreveryoung, Others have replied to this, but I would like to go into a little more detail.
Wasn't the earth covered with water at the beginning of the archean? It wasn't covered completely, although the current thought is that large shallow seas covered more of the globe than we see today. In addition the land mass may not have developed into continents until the end of the Archean. The Archean Eon and the Hadean
quote:
Because collisions between large planetesimals release a lot of heat, the Earth and other planets would have been molten at the beginning of their histories. Solidification of the molten material into rock happened as the Earth cooled. The oldest meteorites and lunar rocks are about 4.5 billion years old, but the oldest Earth rocks currently known are 3.8 billion years. Sometime during the first 800 million or so years of its history, the surface of the Earth changed from liquid to solid. Once solid rock formed on the Earth, its geological history began. This most likely happened prior to 3.8 billion years, but hard evidence for this is lacking. Erosion and plate tectonics has probably destroyed all of the solid rocks that were older than 3.8 billion years. The advent of a rock record roughly marks the beginning of the Archean eon.
The molten surface cooled, volcanoes were common, and they released water vapor that then fell down to form the seas. Archean Eon | Atmosphere, Timeline, and Facts | Britannica
quote:
The Archean eon, which preceded the Phanerozoic eon, spanned about 1.5 billion years and is subdivided into four eras: the Neoarchean (2.8 to 2.5 billion years ago), Mesoarchean (3.2 to 2.8 billion years ago), Paleoarchean (3.6 to 3.2 billion years ago), and Eoarchean (4 to 3.6 billion years ago).* If you were able to travel back to visit the Earth during the Archean, you would likely not recognize it as the same planet we inhabit today. The atmosphere was very different from what we breathe today; at that time, it was likely a reducing atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and other gases which would be toxic to most life on our planet today. Also during this time, the Earth's crust cooled enough that rocks and continental plates began to form. It was early in the Archean that life first appeared on Earth. Our oldest fossils date to roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and consist of bacteria microfossils. In fact, all life during the more than one billion years of the Archean was bacterial. ... The earliest terrestrial materials are not rocks but minerals. In Western Australia some sedimentary conglomerates, dated to 3.3 billion years ago, contain relict detrital zircon grains that have isotopic ages between 4.2 and 4.4 billion years. These grains must have been transported by rivers ... Archean oceans were likely created by the condensation of water derived from the outgassing of abundant volcanoes. ... Throughout the Archean, oceanic and island arc crust was produced semi-continuously for 1.5 billion years; ... ... Other rocks that occur in granulite-gneiss belts (zones of rocks that were metamorphosed in the Archean mid-lower crust) are exhumed remnants of the lower parts of the Archean continents and thus preserve evidence of deep crustal processes operating at the time.
We have continent formation with rivers, so there were areas that were not flooded.
That qualifies as a flood to me. There is no record of life before the Archean eon, there was no wood to build an ark with, no people to build the ark and no animals to put in the ark. It seems to me that a better (yet still imperfect) match is with chapter 1 of genesis:
quote:
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
I also note that a separation of land and water is a common motif in religions. Enjoy.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 252 of 341 (656699)
03-21-2012 9:35 AM
|
|
|
regarding CrytoGod thread Is evolution based on empirical science?
CrytoGod asks Is evolution based on empirical science? The short answer is yes. All science is empirical. It is based on the scientific method. Evolution is based on the scientific method, and many empirical tests and observations have been made: evolution is science.
(1) The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis. Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. Studying these processes via the scientific method is what the science of evolution does. The rest of his post is argument from incredulity and ignorance, common to creationist misunderstanding of the evidence, the science and the theory of evolution, and which will be shredded by many people once this post is promoted. Nobody has seen a mountain form by plate tectonics, and the reason is simple: people don't live long enough. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 253 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2012 10:09 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 254 by dwise1, posted 03-21-2012 3:46 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 253 of 341 (656703)
03-21-2012 10:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 252 by RAZD
03-21-2012 9:35 AM
|
|
Re: regarding CrytoGod thread Is evolution based on empirical science?
The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes, too.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2012 9:35 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6138 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.2
|
|
|
Message 254 of 341 (656742)
03-21-2012 3:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 252 by RAZD
03-21-2012 9:35 AM
|
|
Re: regarding CrytoGod thread Is evolution based on empirical science?
Somebody needs to point him to the recent discussion of cladistics so that he can understand why his "but they're still fruitflies!" complaint is so incredibly lame. And what's with his name? Goggle'ing, all I could find on "Cryto" is:
quote:
Demon of Vanity, is a powerful demon who grants youth,
beauty, and health in.
I always knew that fundamentalists were really and very seriously into demonology, but isn't this carrying that obsession a bit too far?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2012 9:35 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 1036 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 255 of 341 (656747)
03-21-2012 4:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by dwise1
03-21-2012 3:46 PM
|
|
Re: regarding CrytoGod thread Is evolution based on empirical science?
I think it is "cry to...."
But cryto does have a certain ring to it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by dwise1, posted 03-21-2012 3:46 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2