Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism and Geology
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 3 of 56 (592005)
11-17-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
11-17-2010 7:06 PM


YEC and other delusions
I was having a rather heated debate with a local YEC today and the topic of dating came up. He kept reiterating the point that we (the scientist) do not know the original condition of the earth when it formed and so forth. So how do we know that radioactive decay, speed of light and all other physical laws and natural laws have always been as they are now?
All the evidence points to uniformity of radioactive decay, speed of light and all other physical laws and natural laws. There is no good evidence to suggest this is incorrect. In the face of so much contrary evidence, YECs have to believe anything which gives them some hope that their religious beliefs in these areas are correct. It doesn't have to be logical, supported by evidence, or even consistent with other beliefs as long as it lets them delude themselves that their beliefs are supported by science.
As much as I tried to explain scientific methods used and so on he kept harking on about how we just don't know what conditions were like.
It is a waste of time even trying with one whose mind is so closed to the evidence of the real world.
He then went on to talk about the Mt St Helens eruptions and the forming of strata and canyons quickly, arguments I had heard before of course, but still I let him finish. He then argued that because it has been shown that canyons can form quickly, whats to say that they haven't formed quickly in the past.
Canyons can form very quickly in soils, such as those laid down and rearranged by St. Helens. Canyons do not form nearly so quickly in hard rock.
To quote a section from Ken Hams 'The New Answers Book 3' he states:
But notice something about the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism: they are anti-biblical assumptions. The bible indicated that the universe was created supernaturally by God (Genesis 1:1) and that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates.
Which one stands up to a test against real world evidence?
Now my question is two fold,
1) If uniformitarianism and naturalism are anti-biblical assumptions as ways to explain things in the past, how can he use the fact that a canyon formed 30 years ago as an argument for his position?
First, the bible has nothing to do with science. Many of the religious beliefs credited to the bible are in fact anti-science and anti-rational.
And he is using the 30-year old canyon as evidence because he has nothing else. And that, as noted above, is entirely wrong. Newly deposited soils will behave much differently than old hard geological rocks. They might both form canyons but to suggest that because one does so quickly in soils that the other must have done so quickly in rock (and as such being part of their evidence for a global flood) is silly.
2) Or is it that a YEC can pick and choose what to include as being fit for their arguments?
Bingo! We have a winner!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-17-2010 7:06 PM Zubbbra25 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 12:04 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 56 (592018)
11-18-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
11-18-2010 12:04 AM


Re: POTMed it
Thank you!
Edited by Coyote, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 12:04 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-18-2010 2:37 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 56 (592726)
11-21-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tanypteryx
11-21-2010 2:37 PM


Re: non-uniformitarianism and the Anthropic Principle
Another thing that strikes me as strange is some of these creationists make wild claims that the laws of physics were different before the flood i.e. radioactive decay was different, and then use the Anthropic Principle to say that the Universe was created perfectly for life on earth; that if any of the physical constants were even a millionth of one percent different life could not exist.
I don't know if it is the same folks saying both things but I would not be surprised.
Consistency is not a requirement for creation "science."
The only requirement seems that tenets of creation "science" must sound good and not contradict the bible.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-21-2010 2:37 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Iblis, posted 11-21-2010 5:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 56 (593254)
11-25-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by alschwin
11-24-2010 2:59 PM


Re: Inverted polystrate trees?
Since you are attributing these trees to the global flood, a couple of questions:
1) At what date do you place the flood?
2) Are all of these tree features, or even a majority of them, dated to that same age?
{Please, let's keep young Earth creationism out of this topic as much as possible. Discuss flood deposits but don't drag the Noahtic flood in. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add comment.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by alschwin, posted 11-24-2010 2:59 PM alschwin 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