Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 12:26 PM
31 online now:
JonF, ringo, Stile (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,171 Year: 15,207/19,786 Month: 1,930/3,058 Week: 304/404 Day: 22/96 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 69 of 409 (679291)
11-13-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
11-13-2012 7:35 AM


Denial is not science
Hi Faith, and welcome back.

It doesn't invalidate the field of geology at all, the age of the earth is entirely an interpretive scheme. The only actual science it contradicts is radiometric dating, which someday will be proved to be false but meanwhile that's the only science that takes a hit. Everything else is interpretation or theory. Everything in geology is quite easily accommodated in 6000 years. You only THINK the billions of years has been scientifically established. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Ah, then you will be able to explain the correlations:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I can post them step by step here if you don't want (or can't) tackle it on that thread.

The task is not just to explain how each system is wrong in it's evidence and conclusions for time that has elapsed, but the correlations between the different methods: why they get the same results.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 98 of 409 (679776)
11-15-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
11-15-2012 2:43 PM


carbon dating verification
Hi Coyote,

It was arrived at through radiocarbon dating, along with artifact styles, and the midden constituents and depositional history of the site in which it was found.

I would add that this is well within the range where the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating has been validated by dendrochronology -- the counting of annual tree rings -- which has itself been validated to be within 0.5% accuracy, as detailed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 - see Message 4.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : wording

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 2:43 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 108 of 409 (679915)
11-16-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Genomicus
11-15-2012 9:42 PM


back to cognitive dissonance again
Hi Genomicus,

I reject it as science.

For scientific reasons?

No -- because the information conflicts with her worldview:

Message 99: ... Sorry. Because you cannot know the past as you think you can and I do happen to have a trustworthy source of historical knowledge that I'm not going to yield over to the mere cogitations of mere human beings, however nice, smart and honest you might be.

This is how she resolves the conflict, by just rejecting any conflicting information.

This of course means that her statements about having an explanation that is as good or better than science is merely an admission of confirmation bias, cherry picking what fits her beliefs, rejecting what doesn't.

Message 99: Sorry, I DO respect you scientists a great deal -- when you stick to the work of science, ...
... even with RAZD's dendrochronology and his whole list of supposed proofs, which I've seen him post many times here, I reject it as science. ...

Classic example of cognitive dissonance (for those just joining us the thread in question is Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, a thread about the correlations between dating methods that no creationist has been able to answer since it was first posted in 03-14-2004 ... ).

The scientific field of dendrochronology has three unbroken chronologies that extend back past the age of Coyote's skeleton, and which agree with each other within 0.5% up to 8,000 plus years ago -- without any break or discontinuity. One of these, the bristlecone pine, includes two living (when dated) trees that dated back to 4,800 plus years ago. The three dendrochronologies were developed independently, yet they agree in regards to climate and 14C/12 ratios within 0.5%, due to the tested and validated scientific processes used.

The 14C/12 ratios in all three chronologies also show the characteristic pattern of sun cycles affecting the production of 14C, showing that this pattern of sun cycles was also present in the past (ie the suns behavior did not change in this regard of the course of this record).

This is the graph of the calculated age from 14C/12C ratios and actual age of the rings:

Note that the calculated age is based on the exponential decay of 14C, and thus it can be converted back to absolute ratios by reversing the calculation. This means that the levels measured in older tree rings is significantly less than the the newer ones ... and that these levels match year for year between the three chronologies.

You can see the regular pattern of the variation in solar production of 14C in this graph. You do NOT see any scattering of data that would show that the method is inaccurate.

There is no break in the data that would allow for a world wide flood during the time covered by these chronologies.

Faith cannot explain this information, so she rejects it instead and pretends (fools herself?) that it isn't science and thus isn't valid information.

This is one of the ways that people resolve cognitive dissonance in their beliefs.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Genomicus, posted 11-15-2012 9:42 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 137 of 409 (680139)
11-17-2012 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Coyote
11-17-2012 12:13 PM


Margins of error and effect on dates
Hi Coyote,

It raises doubt because you are predisposed to not accept either the method or the results. The reason for sending so many samples is we were dealing with a large and complex site. There were four separate components there, and we wanted to establish the age and range of each one.

Another thing to point out is what the margins of error from the various known causes, including those that Faith raises, are tested and included in the margins of error in each of the techniques for the dates derived.

ie - the measured, tested, evaluated, confirmed error in tree ring counting is 0.5% over an 8,000 year sample: there are sources of error, but they don't add up to a significant effect on the accuracy of dendrochronology.

When we look at the calibration curve for 14C dating:

14C Calibration and Correlations, Message 1: Not only was there a strong correlation between the three dendrochronologies, there was also a strong correlation in each one with the actual amount of 14C left in the tree rings. When calculated for radioactive decay and compared to the dendrochronology they showed this calibration curve:

Note that the curve has almost continuous small jagged variations around a smooth curve.

Each of the dendrochronologies have the same jagged variations. At the same times.

Now we can use the 14C scale as a logarithmic scale representation of the actual empirical objective measured ratio of 14C/12C, and then take your test results and draw a horizontal line to the intersection/s with the calibration curve -- and we can see that there are several places where you can get multiple results, giving you a source of error that is known.

When we combine the known errors of dendrochronology, 14C production (jags) variation, and the 14C/12C measurement errors, it results in the possible error for this method.

This error is insufficient to convert the ages covered by dendrochrology -- the tree ring chronology is continuous and unbroken for over 12,460 years before the present day -- to fit within a 6000 year young earth scenario.

Similarly, all of Faiths objections fall inside the possible errors of date measurements, but don't add up to enough change to results to fit.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Coyote, posted 11-17-2012 12:13 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 150 of 409 (680220)
11-18-2012 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tangle
11-18-2012 6:38 AM


PICTURE TOO BIG
Hi Tangle,

Can you edit it to use [img=500]http://upload.wikimedia.org/...phyrocapsa_oceanica_color.jpg [/img]

Thanks.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 6:38 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Tangle, posted 11-18-2012 2:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 218 of 409 (680364)
11-19-2012 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
11-18-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Getting to the details.
Hi Faith,

This is one part of YEC thinking that I have a lot of trouble with:

From all the bazillions of tons of loose sediments carried in the Flood waters that had been scoured off the land mass in the early stages of the Flood.

Why do you say this? Why does this flood cause this massive amount of scouring in the early stages? All I see is reference to rain, which causes some erosion, but not whole mountains in one whack.

Do you have a specific biblical reference that specifically says that this occurs?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 11:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:57 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 235 of 409 (680447)
11-19-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
hI Faith,

This Flood was huge. ...

Which says nothing about the turbulence of the floodwater. Some floods are gentle.

... It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, ...

It rained, yes, but rain doesn't always cause mudslides.

Do you have a source for your use of the term "torrents"? -- there is a lot of variation in how much water rains down in any given storm.

If you cannot provide a biblical reference for the use of "torrents" then you apparently are making up something that is not (strictly speaking) in the bible.

... A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, ...

Can, but does not always -- it depends on the slope, saturation, and type of soil in each specific instance. We can look at the record of mudslides versus the record of rainfall, in which case I would suggest that mudslides are a rare, rather than a common, result of rain.

In addition, mudslides that have been observed do not cover whole plains of land but peter out soon after the slope gets too flat.

Again can you provide documentation that any mudslides occurred, or are you including pure supposition\imagination rather than anything specifically included in the bible?

... so multiply that effect appropriately. ...

And what is appropriate? 0? How many mudslides are listed in the bible?

... There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" ...

Which could be a gentle welling up of the oceans until the land was covered, a process that would cause little disturbance to any then existing land masses. This also reduces the theoretical amount of rainwater needed to cover the land.

Again, I am unaware of any documented damage from such a source in the bible -- can you provide some?

... and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. ...

Curiously, standing water is not known for causing any significant erosion or mudslides.

... This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.

Why?

Why should we assume that there was any significant erosion when there is -- apparently -- no documentation of any erosion occurring?

Can you provide a biblical reference to erosion occurring at all?

Would you not agree that a literalist interpretation of the bible is limited to what is specifically mentioned in the bible?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:50 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 253 of 409 (680472)
11-19-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
11-19-2012 3:43 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Hi Faith,

Sorry, the Bible is the foundation. The facts do have to conform to it, and ultimately we'll see that to be the case. Meanwhile anything that contradicts the Bible has to go.

As far as I can see, nothing that I posted in Message 235 contradicts the bible, rather it is asking for specific claims you have made to be actually supported by the bible:

This Flood was huge. ...

Which says nothing about the turbulence of the floodwater. Some floods are gentle.

... It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, ...

It rained, yes, but rain doesn't always cause mudslides.

Do you have a source for your use of the term "torrents"? -- there is a lot of variation in how much water rains down in any given storm.

If you cannot provide a biblical reference for the use of "torrents" then you apparently are making up something that is not (strictly speaking) in the bible.

... A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, ...

Can, but does not always -- it depends on the slope, saturation, and type of soil in each specific instance. We can look at the record of mudslides versus the record of rainfall, in which case I would suggest that mudslides are a rare, rather than a common, result of rain.

In addition, mudslides that have been observed do not cover whole plains of land but peter out soon after the slope gets too flat.

Again can you provide documentation that any mudslides occurred, or are you including pure supposition\imagination rather than anything specifically included in the bible?

... so multiply that effect appropriately. ...

And what is appropriate? 0? How many mudslides are listed in the bible?

... There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" ...

Which could be a gentle welling up of the oceans until the land was covered, a process that would cause little disturbance to any then existing land masses. This also reduces the theoretical amount of rainwater needed to cover the land.

Again, I am unaware of any documented damage from such a source in the bible -- can you provide some?

... and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. ...

Curiously, standing water is not known for causing any significant erosion or mudslides.

... This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.

Why?

Why should we assume that there was any significant erosion when there is -- apparently -- no documentation of any erosion occurring?

Can you provide a biblical reference to erosion occurring at all?

Would you not agree that a literalist interpretation of the bible is limited to what is specifically mentioned in the bible?

Curiously, I ask these questions for clarity, noting that you have also said:

... Too bad, creationists today come up with just as unbiblical stuff.

So you really need to establish what is actually biblical stuff, and then allow that anything NOT specifically mentioned must be "unbiblical stuff"

So can you answer my questions above?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : format


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 4:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 270 of 409 (680496)
11-19-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
11-19-2012 4:19 PM


small response of little worth
Hi again Faith,

Curiously I notice that you have hardly touched the questions I raised. I really am interested in your providing biblical references to show that your assertions are not "unbiblical stuff".

It's known for DISSOLVING stuff. Soaking, saturating, dissolving.

Again, water is known for dissolving some materials (soluble things), such as limestone deposits. There are instances known where enough is dissolved that the surface of the land collapses, however this is not a mudslide, but a collapsed roof of a cave where the limestone has been dissolved out to the point of structural failure of the covering rock layers.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6101766

quote:

Of course, you also now have the problem of first forming the limestone and then depositing stuff over it and then dissolving it, with these processes specifically detailed in the bible.

This process is slow, normally taking many years to occur:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/03/15/how-caves-form/

quote:
How many caves are there in Arizona? By one count, more than 1,600. Most of us have been to Colossal Cave in Tucson, or Kartchner Cave near Benson. Both of these are limestone caves. ...

Limestone caves have a geologically short lifetime, usually less than a few million years, and more often, just a few thousand years.


Sadly, it appears that "a geologically short lifetime" is still significantly longer than the duration of the flood.

Do you have a biblical reference for the dissolving of "stuff" causing mudslides or structural failure?

Again, I want to be sure that you are not posting "unbiblical stuff" ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 306 of 409 (680688)
11-20-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
11-20-2012 10:50 AM


still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi Faith,

I still don't see any biblical references for your assertions.

I don't recall making much out of turbulence, no idea why you do. I believe I said something about the first 40 days and nights of ceaseless rain as breaking up the land, dissolving it etc, but I also mentioned that a point came where the water was simply standing for some long period, and I think I even used the word "tranquil."

To cause erosion and "breaking up the land" you need energy in the water == turbulence.

The point I'm making is the concept of the whole flood being gentle with the water rising from the oceans as a not-out-of-the-ordinary rain falls is not contradicting the bible as far as I can see, but it does not cause any significant effect on the land masses -- similar to what we see in modern floods.

What on earth would prevent it in an event of this size raining on every inch of land in the world? ...

The concept of a rather gentle rain is not contradicted by the bible as far as I can see. Nor is the absence of mudslides contradictory to the biblical account as far as I can see.

What reason would there be to assume something that is NOT specifically addressed in the bible?

... I think you're just being contrary for no reason whatever.

No, I am pointing out that your assertions do not appear to be from literal reading of the bible, but rather they come from imagination. Reading the bible to mean rain gentle enough that it does not cause mudslides is not contradicting the bible is it?

Why on earth would I need a source for something as intuitively obvious as that? If you like I can go with "ceaseless rain" or "steady rain," I don't see that the result would be much different.

Because we are talking about you basing your assertions on a literal reading of the bible, not one augmented by imagination or "unbiblical" assumptions. If the bible does not say it, and say it specifically, then you can not say it is from a literal reading of the bible.

I believe I've said three or four times by now, possibly on this thread, that there is precious little IN the Bible but that what IS in the Bible is the basis for INFERENCES about the Flood, how it most likely would have behaved, and that whatever speculations are used must not contradict the Bible. ...

In other words it is not based on a literal reading of the bible, but on imagination, as long as this imagination is not contradicted by the bible.

For instance, can we imagine that the sky was green and the air acidic during the flood, because the bible does not say otherwise? We could, but why should we, when we can imagine that it was similar to what we see today: why should we imagine something out of the ordinary unless it is specifically mentioned?

... Your questions are meaningless.

But they don't contradict the bible do they? If they don't contradict the bible AND if they conform to what we know about weather and geology and physics etc, then it could be a valid inference of what IS covered in the bible -- as valid as yours or foreveryoung's or anyone else's ...

Oh honestly, RAZD, this Flood could not possibly have NOT caused mudslides. Again you are obviously just making up stuff to be contrary, you have no honest reason for this nonsense.

Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. There are many floods that occur that do not cause mudslides, there are many rainstorms that do not cause mudslides. Why should I consider mudslides to have happened unless they are specifically mentioned in the biblical account?

Does it contradict the bible to say there were no mudslides?

... would have dissoved the whole land mass, ...

It appears that you do not use the word "dissolve" in the same manner as the rest of us.

quote:
dis•solve [dih-zolv] Show IPA verb dis·solved, dis·solv·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to make a solution of, as by mixing with a liquid; pass into solution: to dissolve salt in water.

You seem to mean erosion instead.

The idea here is that the AMOUNT of water PLUS the pounding by the rain for forty straight days and nights would have dissoved the whole land mass, and the idea that it wouldn't have is just perverse.

More argument from incredulity.

Again, can you point to where the bible says "pounding"? I've lived in the Pacific Northwest and you can have weeks of constant rain -- a steady drizzle -- but it isn't "pounding" rain just because it is of a long duration. Similarly there are rain forests where annual rainfall lasts a long time and exceeds 100" .

Why should I assume any different level of rain unless it is specifically mentioned in the biblical account?

In addition, what the bible says - as far as I can see - is that the water rose, no major turbulence is mentioned, until it covered the mountains, NOT that the mountains "dissolved" or eroded down.

I'm doing exactly what you are doing, imagining what such a Flood would have done, ...

Except that we get radically different results. Mine do not assume anything out of the ordinary occurred.

... and just what evolutionists do when they imagine what swupposedly happened in a layer of sandstone ...

Curiously, evolutionary biologists do not assume\imagine anything about geology other than that the scientists in that field are doing their job in accordance with the scientific method and that the peer reviewed results are the best explanations of the evidence available.

Geologists, on the other hand, study and test concepts of what happens to sand when submitted to pressure and heat.

Paleontologist study the objects and fossils embedded in the sandstone complexes.

... laughably refer to as a huge era of time. ...

Argument by prejudicial language logical fallacy.

Curiously, huge eras of time have been measured. The earth IS at least 4.5 billion years old. This is based on the empirical objective evidence that shows parts of the earth to be this old. Logically you cannot have the earth younger than any part of it. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for information on the development of those age measurements.

... Yes I'm speculating, ...

Making stuff up that is unbiblical.

... imagining what the Flood would ...

Not "would" -- a better term would be "could" because what you imagine is not documented is it? Even better would be "might if things went according to my imagination"

... have done based on my understanding of what rain and floods do ...

Taken to a rather unreasonable extreme, beyond anything ever observed as being done by rain and flood in the known world.

... and what the Bible says about the Flood. ...

Which, IIRC, is "precious little" -- it rained, the fountains opened, the water rose.

... Pardon me if I think my speculations make a ton more sense than your nonsense here.

Why do you think so? Confirmation bias? Cognitive dissonance? Pride?

You said: "whatever speculations are used must not contradict the Bible" -- do my comments contradict the bible?

We're talking intelligent inferences from the Bible here, not your silly excuses for inferences. To multiply appropriately should give us at least millions of mudslides around the globe and you know what, you know that, but as long as we must depend on speculation you figure you can give the most unlikely speculations and get away with it. Oh how about thousands if you need a more conservative estimate?

Curiously, there is no evidence of anywhere near this number of mudslides. Mudslides do leave tell-tale traces and what we frequently see are contradictory evidence showing that a different process led to soil and sand deposits.

Some mudslides have been identified in the fossil record, so it is not a matter of not recognizing when this occurs.

You might want to read Dr Adequate's excellent thread on Introduction To Geology.

Oh it could have been fairly nonturbulent, but probably not just a gentle welling up, and the rain would have done the work of dissolving the land mass anyway.

And presumably the mountains just crystallized back into existence when the rain stopped?

If you mean eroding instead of dissolving then yes, it is likely that there would be some erosion of existing soils into streams and lakes, similar to what we see today. We can also see that a duration of only 40 days of rain in one storm would likely contribute less erosion than has been observed via the numerous rainstorms over the last couple thousand years of known history.

Curiously , no mountain has been seen to have been eroded into the see in thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the accumulated duration of rain on some of those mountains exceeding 40 days by orders of magnitude.

We can also quantify that erosion and see that even all of that erosion that has been observed during historical times is insufficient to account for formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Again, we're talking inference BASED on the very little information given in the Bible and you know it. I'm just better at imagining what a worldwide Flood would do than you are. By a long shot. As are all creationist Flooodists.

In other words you are imagining "unbiblical stuff" -- scenarios not in the bible -- to suit your personal fancy, and find that your imagination suits your fancy better than mine.

And you still have not shown a single biblical reference that shows my concepts contradict what is in the bible, or that they contradict science for that matter.

The rain would have loosened so much sediment the water would be full of the stuff by now. ...

Which does not cause mudslides. You did not explain why mudslides would occur.

Nor is it necessary that the water be "full of stuff" as the ability of water to keep objects in suspension is a function of particle size and density and turbulence (mixing energy).

... I've many times wondered if the sediments started precipitating out during this phase of the Flood. ...

Precipitation is a continuous process, it doesn't turn off and on. The larger denser material precipitates first and the smaller lighter material last, sometimes months later, depending on the material (silt and clay for instance). This results in layering by size and density, a readily observable trend, and one that is frequently used to identify geological features.

But we're talking ocean here you know, tides, waves, currents and all that. However quiet the water was it wasn't PERFECTLY quiet by a long shot.

But no land area to butt up against, waves don't really move water from one place to another (the water particles move in a circle), and the water below the surface is significantly quieter than at the surface: at about one wavelength below the surface the movement of water particles due to the wave action is virtually gone.

There is no reason to expect any more effect than what we see today, even in the Bay of Fundy.

Gee another failure of imagination, RAZD? I know you don't want the Flood to make any kind of sense but you are really bending over backwards to be ridiculous about it.

Now we have an ad hominem logical fallacy. Curiously all I am asking is for you to explain your assertion.

This comment does nothing to explain why I should expect something outside the realms of ordinary experience.

Again, of course not, ...

In other words, you have absolutely no biblical reference to justify your assertion. You have no reference of any erosion in the bible at all.

... we're talking intelligent reasonable inference.

Of something that is NOT in the bible.

What a strange idea, of course not. But I avoid the term "literal." I read the Bible the way it was meant to be read, which is sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes symbolic, sometimes figurative and so on and so forth.

So the flood is symbolic then? Given that a lot of what you attribute to it is imaginary.

I came back to answer this post because you've brought up these issues later in the thread as well, but I have to say the reason I didn't answer it at first is that most of it is just silly. And you know it.

What I know - now - is that you do not have any biblical references for the different aspects you attribute to flood waters, rather that they are based on your imagination.

The reason that you find my comments "silly" is due to cognitive dissonance.

If you cannot show that it contradicts the bible AND if you cannot show that it contradicts what is known to occur by science and observation, then dismissing it as "silly" is just your attempt to deal with information that is counter to your beliefs.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2012 4:56 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 308 by foreveryoung, posted 11-20-2012 5:40 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 311 of 409 (680712)
11-20-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by foreveryoung
11-20-2012 5:40 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi foreveryoung,

Given a steep enough slope, a mudslide will occur once the soil reaches saturation. The subsoil usually has a low water permeability and so it will not slide. However, if water can make its way past the subsoil and penetrate in the saprolite, there will be a landslide if the saprolite is saturated with water and the slope is steep enough.

Agreed, however such conditions do not occur everywhere whenever it rains

The main point is that mudslides in specific are not mentioned in the bible account.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by foreveryoung, posted 11-20-2012 5:40 PM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 377 of 409 (680965)
11-21-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:23 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith,

Dissolving "stuff" somehow equates to dissolving ROCK for you guys? "Stuff?" I'm thinking MUDSLIDES here, not ROCK.

Mudslides are due to saturation of the soils with water, and then liquefaction of the soil - where it behaves more like a liquid than a solid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atterberg_limits

quote:
The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state the consistency and behavior of a soil is different and thus so are its engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be defined based on a change in the soil's behavior. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can distinguish between different types of silts and clays. ...

Note that a search of this page for "dissolve" is negative.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 391 of 409 (680987)
11-21-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:14 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith

Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking..

quote:
Daffynitions

Creationists have a tendency to use non-standard definitions to make their arguments, and this gets into the issue of logical fallacies (strawman, equivocation, etc) that will be discussed later, but for now we will address the basic validity of such definitions.


It leads to frustration, rather than communication, as you have experienced. The purpose of debate is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner.

Message 388: ... But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. ...

Nope. The geologists here disagree as do the majority of those who actually practice geology.

See Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems (proposed new thread). It shows how real geologists evaluate the information in detail to show that creationist claims are bogus.

... So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details. ...

Amusingly, it is the details that kill it. On so many levels.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:36 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 406 of 409 (681078)
11-22-2012 11:01 AM


Science and evidence and cognitive dissonance -- summary of my posts
In the interest of providing a summary of my position/s, I am only going to address (a) the OP and (b) my own posts. This will be a little long.

The OP presented a video of YEC creationists being subjected to evidence contrary to their beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance theory says that there are several ways that the dissonance created by such experiences can be resolved in the minds of the people involve. Anger, attacking the messenger, and even more steadfast belief in their positions, especially when reinforced by talking to others of similar beliefs. These all occurred.

We could have predicted that the road trip would end the way it did using cognitive dissonance theory. Likewise we could predict similar behavior from any YEC creationists that respond. This also occurred.

Unfortunately the video suffered from two related problems: first it had to be edited down to the length allowed for broadcasting (and thus a lot of relevant material needed to be excluded, and the information covered in the raw footage is even more limited to but a cursory look at the vast amount of evidence); second it had to be made entertaining.

The actual evidence is much more pervasive than could possibly be covered by such a short film, and the learning of what the evidence means would need to take significantly longer than allowed by the road-trip format.

In Message 69 I entered the discussion to discuss the issue of the age of the earth:

Ah, then you will be able to explain the correlations:
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

The task is not just to explain how each system is wrong in it's evidence and conclusions for time that has elapsed, but the correlations between the different methods: why they get the same results.

This request went unanswered. One reaction predictable by cognitive dissonance is that contrary information may be ignored in the hope that it will go away.

Sadly, empirical objective evidence does not go away or change because someone wishes this to happen.

My position on the evidence showing that the earth is indeed old, older than any YEC model can explain, was reinforced with Message 98 in response to Coyote's post on 14C dating of a skeleton:

I would add that this is well within the range where the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating has been validated by dendrochronology -- the counting of annual tree rings -- which has itself been validated to be within 0.5% accuracy, as detailed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 - see Message 4.

Ignoring contrary evidence does not make it go away.

In Message 108 I raised the issue of cognitive dissonance, not to insult any participants, but to show how this psychological phenomonon affects the way people respond to dissonant information, and how to better understand those responses.

This is how she resolves the conflict, by just rejecting any conflicting information.

This of course means that her statements about having an explanation that is as good or better than science is merely an admission of confirmation bias, cherry picking what fits her beliefs, rejecting what doesn't.

Message 99: Sorry, I DO respect you scientists a great deal -- when you stick to the work of science, ...
... even with RAZD's dendrochronology and his whole list of supposed proofs, which I've seen him post many times here, I reject it as science. ...

Classic example of cognitive dissonance (for those just joining us the thread in question is Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, a thread about the correlations between dating methods that no creationist has been able to answer since it was first posted in 03-14-2004 ... ).

There is no break in the data that would allow for a world wide flood during the time covered by these chronologies.

Faith cannot explain this information, so she rejects it instead and pretends (fools herself?) that it isn't science and thus isn't valid information.

This is one of the ways that people resolve cognitive dissonance in their beliefs.

This was reinforced in Message 137 (along with reference to 14C Calibration and Correlations):

Another thing to point out is what the margins of error from the various known causes, including those that Faith raises, are tested and included in the margins of error in each of the techniques for the dates derived.

ie - the measured, tested, evaluated, confirmed error in tree ring counting is 0.5% over an 8,000 year sample: there are sources of error, but they don't add up to a significant effect on the accuracy of dendrochronology.

When we combine the known errors of dendrochronology, 14C production (jags) variation, and the 14C/12C measurement errors, it results in the possible error for this method.

This error is insufficient to convert the ages covered by dendrochrology -- the tree ring chronology is continuous and unbroken for over 12,460 years before the present day -- to fit within a 6000 year young earth scenario.

Similarly, all of Faiths objections fall inside the possible errors of date measurements, but don't add up to enough change to results to fit.

The exponential decay of 14C is validated by the dendrochronologies, it occurred in the past as it does today.

Curiously, the corrected ages from calibration of the 14C method result in older dates than the uncalibrated calculation. This makes 14C a worse problem for YEC creationists to explain.

Rejecting contrary evidence does not make it go away.

Faith, like most YEC creationists did not participate in discussions of the evidence for an old earth, such as are presented in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

In Message 218 I first asked Faith for documentation from the bible for her assertions:

[qs]This is one part of YEC thinking that I have a lot of trouble with:

From all the bazillions of tons of loose sediments carried in the Flood waters that had been scoured off the land mass in the early stages of the Flood.[/s]

Why do you say this? Why does this flood cause this massive amount of scouring in the early stages? All I see is reference to rain, which causes some erosion, but not whole mountains in one whack.

Do you have a specific biblical reference that specifically says that this occurs?

It seems that YEC creationists have this propensity to ascribe incredible extrapolations and imagination to what could be simply rising water, including processes that are not observed to occur anywhere on earth (water pressure causing sediment to turn into rock, fossils formed instantly by water pressure, etc).

This is repeated in Message 235

Do you have a source for your use of the term "torrents"? -- there is a lot of variation in how much water rains down in any given storm.

Again can you provide documentation that any mudslides occurred, or are you including pure supposition\imagination rather than anything specifically included in the bible?

Again, I am unaware of any documented damage from such a source in the bible -- can you provide some?

Why should we assume that there was any significant erosion when there is -- apparently -- no documentation of any erosion occurring?

Can you provide a biblical reference to erosion occurring at all?

And this was addressed again in Message 253:

As far as I can see, nothing that I posted in Message 235 contradicts the bible, rather it is asking for specific claims you have made to be actually supported by the bible: (Message 235 repeated)

Curiously, I ask these questions for clarity, noting that you have also said:

... Too bad, creationists today come up with just as unbiblical stuff.

So you really need to establish what is actually biblical stuff, and then allow that anything NOT specifically mentioned must be "unbiblical stuff"

So can you answer my questions above?

This is particularly telling, as Faith railed against early Christian amateur geologists that determined that the evidence did not show the occurrence of a world wide flood being "unbiblical stuff" when what she does is not supported by the bible in any reference that she could have provided when asked.

The fallacy of pride in one's own opinions. Sadly, opinion is spectacularly incapable of altering evidence.

In Message 270 we moved from the issue of supporting various assertions to the issue of terminology and the proper use of terms:

Again, water is known for dissolving some materials (soluble things), such as limestone deposits. There are instances known where enough is dissolved that the surface of the land collapses, however this is not a mudslide, but a collapsed roof of a cave where the limestone has been dissolved out to the point of structural failure of the covering rock layers.

Of course, you also now have the problem of first forming the limestone and then depositing stuff over it and then dissolving it, with these processes specifically detailed in the bible.

Sadly, it appears that "a geologically short lifetime" is still significantly longer than the duration of the flood.

Do you have a biblical reference for the dissolving of "stuff" causing mudslides or structural failure?

Again, I want to be sure that you are not posting "unbiblical stuff" ...

This was also addressed in Message 377 and Message 391 along with reference to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking..

In Message 306 I moved on to discussing alternative scenarios based on what we actually see in the world around us to ascribe those effects to the purported world wide flood:

To cause erosion and "breaking up the land" you need energy in the water == turbulence.

The point I'm making is the concept of the whole flood being gentle with the water rising from the oceans as a not-out-of-the-ordinary rain falls is not contradicting the bible as far as I can see, but it does not cause any significant effect on the land masses -- similar to what we see in modern floods.

If you mean eroding instead of dissolving then yes, it is likely that there would be some erosion of existing soils into streams and lakes, similar to what we see today. We can also see that a duration of only 40 days of rain in one storm would likely contribute less erosion than has been observed via the numerous rainstorms over the last couple thousand years of known history.

Curiously , no mountain has been seen to have been eroded into the see in thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the accumulated duration of rain on some of those mountains exceeding 40 days by orders of magnitude.

What I know - now - is that you do not have any biblical references for the different aspects you attribute to flood waters, rather that they are based on your imagination.

The reason that you find my comments "silly" is due to cognitive dissonance.

If you cannot show that it contradicts the bible AND if you cannot show that it contradicts what is known to occur by science and observation, then dismissing it as "silly" is just your attempt to deal with information that is counter to your beliefs.

So we come back, predictably, to the issue of cognitive dissonance and the rejection of contrary evidence. Curiously, this behavior extends to adamant misuse of "dissolve" when presented with terms that better describe actual processes for what she imagines occurred. Faith again insists that her usage is valid in Message 398:

I refer you back to the definition I already supplied from a standard English Dictionary. There is absolutely nothing unusual about my use of the term "dissolve" despite your strained attempt to discredit me. I'm using STANDARD DiCTIONARY-VALIDATED ENGLISH, ORDINARY ENGLISH.

Note that http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissolve?s=t

dis·solve [dih-zolv] Show IPA verb dis·solved, dis·solv·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to make a solution of, as by mixing with a liquid; pass into solution: to dissolve salt in water.
2. to melt; liquefy: to dissolve sugar into syrup.
3. to undo (a tie or bond); break up (a connection, union, etc.).
4. to break up (an assembly or organization); dismiss; disperse.
5. Government . to order the termination of (a parliament or other legislative body).

The FIRST definition shows the most common usage, and only definition 3 can be stretched to meet her usage (water doesn't melt thingsand 4&5 apply to groups of people).

Here was an opportunity to learn and expand one's understanding of the way things work, and it was rejected.

In science words are used with specific meanings to convey precise information and promote understanding. In a debate clarity of meaning is important to concise arguments. If the posts discussing the term and trying to understand the meaning behind the misuse were deleted the whole thread would be shorter and more concise.

There was substantial appeal to the evidence for the Grand Canyon supporting the YEC creationist model of effects from a world wide flood. There was equally substantial refusal to look at details that contradict this model:

Message 388: ... But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details. ...

Amusingly, it is the contrary details that invalidate such "arm-chair geology" speculation.

To address some of these pernicious details I have proposed a new thread Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems .

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : updated last link to promoted thread


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019