|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential Evidence for a Global Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, I agree. It's futile to even try and have an honest conversation with creos. Found that out some time ago, after having to debate very dishonest users of word salads. Still have no idea what they said.
That's why the debates around scientific subjects are done in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Real scientific journals, not religious tracts who pretend to do science. Not in oral debates, but on paper, where experts can evaluate every word written. Untrue statements are quickly picked up that way. That's an effective way of weeding dishonest debaters out. Once they are weeded out, real honest debate can begin. That's also why word salads don't do too well in scientific journals. They're weeded out. Technical terms work, because the experts all know exactly what every word means. They don't have to guess about the meaning of words.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
I also think that they are the only people who claim that "geologists say that these sediments were deposited over millions of years".
I am a geologist and I don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Sorry to interfere, but I’ve never understood creationist arguments on the so-called polystrate fossils. Maybe Just Being Real could enlighten me on this.
Just Being Real writes: If the dating methods indicate that a layer is millions of years old, then that layer is millions of years old. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old.Just Being Real writes: This is the piece of creationist argument I really don’t understand. Why couldn’t a layer be deposited in a few days or weeks or years and is millions of years old now? Please Just Being Real, explain it to me.
But this conclusion falls apart by the hundreds of polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just being real, I looked at your source here. Your source claims, in the second paragraph:
AIG writes: I see that there’s no reference to these some geologists. Do you have any reference, or is this a straw man being set up? Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth.AIG writes: I doubt that any scientist would even look into Noah’s flood, as there’s absolutely no empirical, objective evidence for it. The only people who would do this, would be Christian-creationists who abandoned the scientific method, but pretend to do science by using sciency-sounding terms. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation. Oh, and by the way, I see that your source didn’t even discuss the geology of coal deposits in any form in his religious article. He didn’t even mention the word layers (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word layer in that article?). The word layer is a very bad layman’s term for some strata, anyway. How do you get to the words strata layers from that article? How does coal relate to "most" strata layers? In my country we have hundreds of thousands of strata, just in the coal-bearing sequences, with only very thin zones of coal-bearing strata dispersed amongs them. Edited by Pressie, : Changed a lot of sentences and spelling!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Thanks RAZD. That was interesting!
This "polystrate fossil evidence" for a "global flood" is a perfect example of how creationists go about to do their "science". It also is an excellent example of why the scientific community sees creationism as nothing but pseudo-science. They tell lay people first that "geologists say that layers are deposited over millions of years". Their first step in deception on this subject. Geologists don't. Strata are deposited at different rates according to circumstances. Then they even make up their own word, "polystrate", and pretend that it is a scientific word. Their second piece of deception. Make up sciency-sounding words to pretend that they do science. Then they show pictures of "polystrate" fossils, and pretend that geologists can't explain this without a global flood. Their third piece of deception. It's already been successfully explained explained in the 1800's. They then go on and tell people that "geologists ignore" these fossils. Their fourth piece of deception. Already been published in the 1800's. Then go go and and tell people that it occurs wordwide and are such a threat to miners. Deception number 5. They aren't. They don't occur in the coal seams in my country. An excellent example of how they go about: deception. Nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just being real writes: It was originally thought that coal beds and oil deposits formed very quickly in a global flood. As we were able to study the evidence and found no evidence for such a flood, we realized that we were completely wrong. So, no, originally we thought coal beds and oil deposits formed quickly. We were wrong. I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form,.... We've never been able to produce coal beds or oil deposits. If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits. Never heard of a process in a lab to produce coal, though. Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.
Just being real writes: Why? We even have peat (the first stage of the coal forming process) accumulating now all over the world. We can see them forming right in front of our own very eyes. Those in my country are certainly are not buried quickly. They’re not buried at all. They just experience anaerobic conditions. All in nature. No global flood needed. .. and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly,.. Just being real writes: Ignoring the photos, what has already been said and references about "polystrate fossils", are you? this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly. The polystrate trees forming today are not forming quickly, as in a global flood quickly. They do take from a few days to a few weeks to a year to lots of years, depending on the circumstances. Right in front of our very own eyes. No global flood involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Just being real writes: My, we're getting snarky, aren't we? Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself.... and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations. In message 181, you replied to Percy’s question in message 180 (RE-so coal beds are flood deposits?) as Yes, I believe most of the strata layers are. There’s absolutely no relation between the question you were asked and the answer you gave. Just being real writes: Oh, were you? Why didn’t you mention it earlier, then? Nothing to do with strata layers at all. No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? In the first place, rainwater percolates through coal beds which ensures that significant amounts of carbon 14 would always be present in any coal bed. Just go down any mine in my country, the coal beds are the most permeable strata in the sequence and look like rivers. it absorbes moisture like spunges. That’s why real scientists know not to even try to measure the carbon 14 in coal beds. A second reason is that the C 14 method only works on organic material less than around 50 000 years old. No real scientist would be as unscientific as even attempt to determine the age of coal beds using the Carbon dating. You’ll never get an accurate answer. (Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!) Just being real writes: Artificially producing oil is not an oil deposit, as you claimed in message 194. It is oil made in labs or industrially. Not a deposit. Even the chemical composition varies considerably from natural-formed oil deposits. Do you actually know what a deposit is? And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time. Just being real writes: Long story about a court case.. I don’t know what this has to do with a global flood. Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood,. Only to defend his position.Just being real writes: You see, this is where your story falls apart. Nobody’s ever claimed that those strata are millions of years apart. That statement of yours is not the truth. Telling porkies about those strata won’t help your case at all. You continually repeating it also won’t turn that statement into the truth. Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. Just being real writes: If somebody is caught telling porkies in a court case, he is dismissed. Ecspecially if he keeps on repeating the same porkie over and over again. Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling! Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistake Edited by Pressie, : I had an extra not in there. It changed the sentence completely. Hopefully this was the last edit!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hey Panda, if they don't even attempt to publish their findings in scientific publications, how on earth is a scientist to know about that "research"?
Oh, don't mind. I know why. Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway. The pseudo sciences; all of them always the same. Clowns who don't tell the truth to to the ignorant. Deceive the lay people. That's it. Sorry, it was JonF, not Panda I replied to. Edited by Pressie, : Wrong name
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Hi RAZD, that is interesting. Thanks for the information.
I still can't see where any real scientist even tried to do C-14 age determinations on either coal seams or oil deposits. They measure the C-14, not the age. Real scientists try to find deposits free of C-14 contamination in oil, but they seem very difficult to find. It does happen, though. How do the YEC's explain them, or do they just ignore it? I don't see anything about coal deposits in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Thanks RAZD
That was very interesting! I really look forward to the work done on AMS and extending the C-14 method to 110 000 years. It would help tremendously in one of the peat projects I'm currently involved in. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Just being real writes: No you don't know have the foggiest what the majority of geologists say about "polystrate" fossils. You don't even realize that there isn't anything like a "uniformatist" geologist. They are called geologists. .. and since we seem to even have a disagreement with what the majority of geologists even say about strata, .... Please, when you come back, provide the sources of your claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I see you didn’t even address your sentence in your post 200, that reads:
Just being real writes: Could you please give any real-life example of where fossils that pierce through strata that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart? I simply don’t believe you. Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart.. When I say an example, I don’t mean where creationists claim that uniformitarian geologists say this. I mean an example of where a uniformitarian geologist actually says this. Just being real writes: You don’t have to give a special name to more than 99.99% percent of all geologists in the world. Just call them geologists. They do science. In my country alone, there’s more than 3 000 of them. And I live in a very small country compared to China, India, the USA, Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc. I wonder how many hundreds of thousand of geologists those countries have? Many Geologists say that the strata layers of the geologic column are representative of millions of years of time. In this discussion I will refer to them as uniformitarian geologists, but with the understanding that not all conventional geologists are strict uniformitarians. Just being real writes: I see that your list has only a handful of geologists. Are they all you can muster? They do need a special name, seeing that they don’t do science, but religion. In opposition is a group of geologists who believe that the strata was laid down during a world wide geologically recent global flood. I will refer to them in this discussion as creation geologists or YEC geologists. Just being real writes: Setting up a straw man, I see. Could you give me an example of where any geologist has ever said that? The question is, how can forests of trees, dinosaurs, fish and other organisms remain protruding from one layer of strata while waiting the enormously long periods of time for the other layers to eventually cover them and then to later fossilize? . Just being real writes: Yes, some of them do, even by Aeolian deposits. Some of you have already agreed with me that the tree fossils demonstrate a rapid deposition of the strata. Just being real writes: They don’t pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Been sorted out in the 1800’s. This tells me that the only point we are really seeming to be in dispute over is, if they pose a problem for uniformitarian geological thinking. Just being real writes: Probably not, but they really are very ignorant about what geologists actually say. Contrary to claims to the otherwise, most creationists are not ignorant at all to the interpretations of Dawson made a hundred years ago about the fossils. Just being real writes: They’re not problematic at all for geologists. Been sorted out in the 1800’s. We just think they are as problematic today as they were then. Just being real writes: Even through aeolian deposits! These fossils are often observed crossing through layers of different types of rock and different coal deposits. Just being real writes: We’ll have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique. Are you going to suggest that in those areas where fossils cut through several layers of strata, that they were buried quickly,.. Just being real writes: We’ll have to look at the evidence first. Any references to an example? Every little lamination in every part of the world is unique.
.. but in areas with the exact same rock and strata and no polystrate fossils are observed, each layer represents millions of years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Ah, now the lights come on why laymen think like they do after reading creationist propaganda.
Just being real, do you think that, for example, the Tournaisian Stage, Mississippi Epoch, Carboniferous Period (shown as one colour and one division in the geologic column), consists of one stratum deposited from around 345 to 359 million years ago at one constant sedimentary rate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This is not really on topic, but I do have to inform Just being real on the inaccuracy of his sources while trying to formulate arguments.
For example, one of your sources, http://www.examiner.com/...-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk , lists Dr. John Morris as a geologist. They certainly are inaccurate. Dr. John Morris is a Civil Engineer with a Ph.D. in Geological Engineering. He is not a geologist, although they list him as one. Why do you refer us to sources who don’t tell the truth? Do you think people will believe you if you portray a totally inaccurate reality where you twist the truth. He is an Engineer who lectures geology at a creationist anti-scientific organisation. Not recognised anywhere else but in fundamentalist circles. It is so easy to find the truth: John D. Morris - Wikipedia. Morris has never been a geologist. He’s not even trained as one. Why do your sources pretend that he is one? To boost the very small number of creationist "geologists"? To pretend that the number is growing? Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentence
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024