Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
76 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,317 Year: 4,429/6,534 Month: 643/900 Week: 167/182 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 76 of 106 (743356)
11-30-2014 8:32 AM


You left off at having not produced anything.

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 77 of 106 (743357)
11-30-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Colbard
11-30-2014 6:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
One of the features here is that replies are links so you can see exactly what is being referenced. In this case it is your claim to have evidence that refutes current dating methods.

quote:

jar writes:

colbard writes:

Ringo writes:

But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

Yet you have never presented any of your alleged evidence.

What evidence do you have?


But you have never provided any evidence for any of your assertions like having an Australian penny radio-carbon dated or your teacher was an atheist who shortly after the alleged penny dating incident became a Christian or that the earth is about 6000 years old.

So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Colbard, posted 11-30-2014 6:01 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:16 AM jar has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 78 of 106 (743826)
12-05-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
11-30-2014 8:42 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Jar writes:

So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect?

Too much. Besides, you seem to have accepted that they are correct, is that an act of faith?

Evolution was never 'proven' until they came up with the dating method.
Who said it's correct?

Human history, without this method, only goes back a few thousand years, civilization, genealogies, ancient runs, only go back a few thousand years.

Anything before that time used to be called Pre-historic, ie not in history at all.
Now "prehistoric" is considered to be fact, but is it?

Here's one of the better creation websites -

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...ing_radiometric_decay_rates

I have my own reasons for dismissing the method, which has nothing to do with the method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 11-30-2014 8:42 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 12-05-2014 8:10 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 12-05-2014 8:22 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-05-2014 8:36 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 79 of 106 (743828)
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.

The fossils are fully preserved, often in an upright position in the sedimentary rock.
If it took millions of years to build that layer, the fossil would have been standing in a desert for millions of years without being eroded, while slowly being covered.

This pattern can be seen in each subsequent layer.

It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics. If you have a pocket full of coins, the smaller coins end up down the bottom.

The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time.

There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years.

The rejection of that cause comes from an inadequate understanding of global flood dynamics.


Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-05-2014 8:02 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 82 by herebedragons, posted 12-05-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2014 11:38 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:23 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 91 by Astrophile, posted 12-07-2014 6:20 AM Colbard has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 155 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 80 of 106 (743830)
12-05-2014 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


Increasingly silly troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:35 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 81 of 106 (743831)
12-05-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Anything before that time used to be called Pre-historic, ie not in history at all.

Don't you think this is referring to written, human history? Not that pre-history is not history?

Now "prehistoric" is considered to be fact, but is it?

The core problem with Creationism being accepted as legitimate science is the way it handles hypothesis testing.

So, how one would need to approach the age of the earth from a creationist perspective, in order to be scientific, is to state the alternate hypothesis, Ha as: "The earth is approximately 6,000 years old." The null hypothesis H0 would then be: "The earth is NOT 6,000 years old." Tests and observations would then need to be made to see if Ha is supported; for example, all carbon dated samples would return an age of < or = 6,000 years. If a carbon dated age returns as 10,000 years old, then what you would have to say is "There is not enough evidence to reject H0." One could then look for ways that carbon dating could be flawed, develop some new assumptions about it and run new tests based on the revised assumptions (using the same, or a revised H0 and Ha).

But instead of approaching this issue in a scientific way (and this is an appropriate criticism, since creationists want to be accepted as legitimate science), they formulate their hypothesis testing all backwards. In other words, they state the research hypothesis as Ha "The earth is millions of years old." and H0 as "The earth is 6,000 years old." Then what they do is attach the Ha by bringing into question certain assumptions or inferences and then declare that "There is not enough evidence to reject H0 ."

I assume you have had a 9th grade science class, so you should understand what I am saying here. Go back and read the article you cited in light of what I just wrote and see if that is what the author is actually doing there. Hint: It is.

When people ask for "evidence" this is exactly what they are asking you and other creationists to do: support your Ha that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Attempting to bring into question the age of the earth being millions of years old and then declaring H0 of a 6,000 year old to be valid is NOT, I repeat NOT scientific.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:16 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 82 of 106 (743832)
12-05-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.

...

There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years.

It might be a good idea to study some actual geology before making statements such as this. There are some good threads on this very forum where creationists made these very claims, perhaps you could look them up and judge the arguments for yourself.

The rejection of that cause comes from an inadequate understanding of global flood dynamics.

There is no one on this earth that understands "global flood dynamics" since it is all made up.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : typo


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:35 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 83 of 106 (743833)
12-05-2014 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:16 AM


Re: Water Fertilizer in the earth
Here's one of the better creation websites -

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...ing_radiometric_decay_rates

I have looked at that site and it is abject nonsense.

I could spend a couple of hours explaining in detail just why that site is nonsense--I've been studying and using the C14 method for decades--but it would be a waste of time.

First, you don't know enough about the subject to be worth the effort, and second, you just reject all evidence that doesn't fit your belief anyway.

I have my own reasons for dismissing the method, which has nothing to do with the method.

That's because you are accepting belief and dogma even when it is contradicted by evidence.


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:16 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 84 of 106 (743835)
12-05-2014 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:16 AM


try actually ansering questions.
Colbard writes:

Jar writes:

So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect?

Too much. Besides, you seem to have accepted that they are correct, is that an act of faith?

Once again you are simply trying to Palm the Pea.

What evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect?

And no, my acceptance of the current dating methods requires no faith at all.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:16 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 85 of 106 (743866)
12-05-2014 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics.

These kinds of the statements are what give people the impression that creationists are idiots. Do you actually believe that mammoths on top and lizards on bottom is the kind of sorting you need to explain?

Well no. What you have illustrated instead is how a pee-poor explanation looks like a work of art to an ignorant fool who knows nothing about paleontology.

You were more interesting when you were pretending not to be a creationist. Now you are just a run of the mill buffoon.

The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time.

Just what position does this BS attempt to refute anyway?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:35 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 86 of 106 (743946)
12-06-2014 5:15 AM


On topic
You have managed to tell me what you think I think, and have made me and my opinions the prime subject, and yet the topic is not about me, it's about the "fountains of the deep." about which none of you have anything to contribute, so exactly why are you here? Your intellect has failed to engage, and that's not a good sign. Just calling things and people crap is too easy and does not require brains at all. If you want to come out from behind those text books and think then come forward, otherwise admit you don't know what you are doing trying to sludge a discussion before it even begins because you happen to disagree with well established ancient knowledge.
Are you here to dispute a contributor or to make a contribution? Make up your mind.
Should I wait for you to get on topic, or until your knowledge comes up to par?
If you have nothing to say about the fountains of the deep then I have nothing to talk about. I should not have to justify my conclusions to you if you don't have a clue about the topic, let alone how deceived you are.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-06-2014 9:06 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 12-06-2014 11:20 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 155 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 87 of 106 (743952)
12-06-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Colbard
12-06-2014 5:15 AM


Re: On topic
Pigeon chess personified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Colbard, posted 12-06-2014 5:15 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 88 of 106 (743965)
12-06-2014 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Colbard
12-06-2014 5:15 AM


Re: On topic
Justifying your conclusions about the fountains of the deep is the topic of this thread. I guess you'll never approach that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Colbard, posted 12-06-2014 5:15 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19537
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 89 of 106 (743967)
12-06-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


Colbard writes:

I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.


Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related.

When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:35 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 12-07-2014 4:53 AM ringo has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 90 of 106 (743991)
12-07-2014 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
12-06-2014 11:23 AM


Ringo writes:

Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related.
When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?

It's a good analogy for the flood layers. One of these days I may feel up to presenting global flood dynamics in a new thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-07-2014 1:21 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:28 PM Colbard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022