Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
539 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, ringo, Tangle (7 members, 532 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,329 Year: 4,441/6,534 Month: 655/900 Week: 179/182 Day: 12/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 90
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 91 of 106 (744001)
12-07-2014 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


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.

But this is completely wrong. The largest size of material that can be moved by flowing water is proportional to the sixth power of the speed; double the speed of the flow, and you multiply the size of the largest object that can be moved by 32. As the waters of a flood decelerate, first boulders and cobbles and pebbles settle out, and then finer sediments like gravel, sand, silt and clay. Did you actually try the experiment with a pocket-full of coins?

It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths.

Again, this is simply wrong; young sedimentary rocks (Pliocene and Pleistocene) contain small mollusc shells, and the bones of the great dinosaurs are found in Mesozoic rocks, in the middle of the geological column and far below the mammoths. Anyway, if your argument were true, we should expect to find fossil birds and small mammals in the oldest rocks.

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.

I can well believe that you find science boring, as you said in another thread. If you had found it interesting, you would have gone to the trouble to check your facts (for example, by reading some text-books), and would not have written such inaccurate stuff as this. What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science.

Edited by Astrophile, : Expansion of point in last paragraph.


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 94 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:42 AM Astrophile has replied
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:58 AM Astrophile has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3302
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 92 of 106 (744015)
12-07-2014 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
12-07-2014 4:53 AM


Colbard writes:

One of these days I may feel up to presenting global flood dynamics in a new thread.

Boy, I can hardly wait for that. This science shit is so boring.

I guess you will mostly teach us about how there was a lot of water. More water than ever before. And it was special water that did not act like normal water, because it was a global flood. There was a lot of love in this water, so it didn't carry stuff like rocks and dirt and dead things like water does today. That's why the biggest heaviest stuff is at the top of all the layers and the smallest stuff is at the bottom. If it wasn't so boring, anyone could go look at the rocks anywhere and see that this is true.

Please, please please start a thread teaching us about global flood dynamics, gosh it sounds so sciencey.
Teach us Obi Wan.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 12-07-2014 4:53 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:44 AM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 93 of 106 (744019)
12-07-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
12-07-2014 4:53 AM


Colbard writes:

It's a good analogy for the flood layers.


Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous.

Do you seriously believe that every leaf came from one gigantic tree? If not, your flood evidence is completely worthless. It points to many floods, not one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 12-07-2014 4:53 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:50 AM ringo has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 94 of 106 (744089)
12-08-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Astrophile
12-07-2014 6:20 AM


Astrophile writes:

What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Astrophile, posted 12-07-2014 6:20 AM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Astrophile, posted 12-24-2014 2:37 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 95 of 106 (744090)
12-08-2014 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tanypteryx
12-07-2014 1:21 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

Boy, I can hardly wait for that. This science shit is so boring.

You won't need to be there, you've already had your thrill just then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-07-2014 1:21 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 96 of 106 (744091)
12-08-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ringo
12-07-2014 1:28 PM


Ringo writes:

Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous.

Yes, I know what you were saying, it still is a simple and effective way to get your point across.

As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age.
Yes, the earth would present evidence for multi floods, and many old lakes and swamps that have disappeared over the centuries.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 12-08-2014 10:44 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 12-21-2014 4:16 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 97 of 106 (744095)
12-08-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Astrophile
12-07-2014 6:20 AM


Astrophile writes:

But this is completely wrong. The largest size of material that can be moved by flowing water is proportional to the sixth power of the speed; double the speed of the flow, and you multiply the size of the largest object that can be moved by 32. As the waters of a flood decelerate, first boulders and cobbles and pebbles settle out, and then finer sediments like gravel, sand, silt and clay.

And the finer particles don't find their way down past and below the larger boulders and rocks?

The flood did not produce one continuous layer, but hundreds of layers in most instances. Your evolutionary models show the big stuff on top, the little things at the bottom. That is a wished model, hardly the general case.
We find shells mixed in with mammoths. No millions of years in between.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Astrophile, posted 12-07-2014 6:20 AM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Astrophile, posted 12-24-2014 3:36 PM Colbard has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 98 of 106 (744118)
12-08-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:50 AM


Colbard writes:

As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age.


Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too.

But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers.

Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:50 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM ringo has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 2631 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 99 of 106 (744223)
12-09-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
12-08-2014 10:44 AM


Ringo writes:

Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too.
But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers.

Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that

No, creationists don't always teach the Bible, but water it down, pardon the pun, by leaning on 'science so named.'

You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic. As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static.
But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 12-08-2014 10:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Pressie, posted 12-09-2014 8:28 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 12-09-2014 11:42 AM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 102 by roxrkool, posted 12-21-2014 2:52 PM Colbard has taken no action
 Message 104 by dwise1, posted 12-22-2014 1:59 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 100 of 106 (744224)
12-09-2014 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Colbard
12-09-2014 8:21 AM


This one was funny:

Colbard writes:

You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.

Actually, geology is very dynamic. Lots and lots of evidence for sudden changes in geology. None of them involve magic, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19539
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 101 of 106 (744251)
12-09-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Colbard
12-09-2014 8:21 AM


Colbard writes:

You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.


No, science has no problem with sudden changes. Volcanic eruptions are an excellent example, one that floodists ignore. There are many "igneous adventures" interspersed with the many floods in the geological record. It is just not possible to explain all of the sudden changes with one event.

Colbard writes:

As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static.


Nobody says the change rates are static but they do stay within certain ranges. You want to extrapolate so far outside the known possible ranges that you're not connected to reality any more.

Colbard writes:

But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.


The biggest storms and the biggest earthquakes you can imagine are miniscule on the world geographic scale and the geologic time scale. Storms and earthquakes are tiny local events. You can't just scale them up.

Colbard writes:

No, creationists don't always teach the Bible....


I know. They have no foundation in the Bible and no foundation in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 228 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(2)
Message 102 of 106 (745279)
12-21-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Colbard
12-09-2014 8:21 AM


Wrong
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.

Oh my. The display of such ignorance by a Creationist on how scientific models are constructed, implemented, and yes, revised, is no real surprise anymore, but the hubris required to state such nonsense never ceases to amaze me.

If science was indeed static, it would never progress and we'd all still be in the stone age. You should take a little time to think about what you're professing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 103 of 106 (745290)
12-21-2014 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:50 AM


Where did flood waters recede to?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:50 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 104 of 106 (745349)
12-22-2014 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Colbard
12-09-2014 8:21 AM


You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.

. . .

But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.


For disavowing "creation science" as much as you do, you still depend almost entirely on what they say. Like the entire confusion over what "catastrophism" and "uniformitarianism" were and are. As I wrote back in 1990 on CompuServe (reposted at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/geology.html) -- IOW, these are things that we have known for a very long time:
quote:
Another thing to remember is that Flood Geologists are not catastrophists. Catastrophism was prevalent in the early 19th century as an opposing view to uniformitarianism. Both camps agreed that the earth is very old and that the strata were laid down over a very long time. Where they did disagree was over the role of violent events in the earth's history; the catastrophists maintained that only extremely violent events could account for the folding and tilting of the earth's strata while the uniformitarianists maintained that gradual sustained processes would have sufficed. Both groups avoided mixing science and religion and would argue for "day-age" or gap theories if pressed to reconcile geology with Genesis.

A third group, the Scriptural Geologists, or "diluvialists", was not so reluctant. This group got their start from the 1820's work of William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick in which they argued that river valleys and certain other sedimentary deposits were the results of a recent worldwide flood. In a few years, however, Buckland's own field work started undermining diluvialism and then, with the publication of Lyell's _Principles of Geology_, both Buckland and Sedgwick abandoned diluvialism.

But the Scriptural Geologists continued writing their views, which were hardly distinguishable from modern Flood Geologists, from the 1820's into the late 19th century. They were highly critical of catastrophists, uniformitarians, and the very founders of diluvialism alike, and Buckland and Sedgwick returned the favor with devastating rebuttals.

Then in the 1920's and 1930's, George McCready Price revived Scriptural Geology and called it "catastrophism" even though he knew better: "The theory of 'catastrophism' as held a hundred years ago, had no resemblance to the theory here discussed, except in name." (_The Geological Ages Hoax_, George McCready Price, 1931, Fleming H. Revell Co., pg 101)

Later in 1960, Henry Morris again popularized Scriptural Geology with _The Genesis Flood_, for which he had apparently drawn most of his ideas from Price. The main question now is whether Morris does not know that his stuff is not catastrophism and that the true catastrophists of the 19th century had rejected it, or whether he does know better but finds it politically expedient to avoid admitting that his Flood Geology is traditionally known as Scriptural Geology.


Similarly, the meaning of "uniformitarianism" has changed since the early 1800's (imagine that!). Now it means that the same natural processes and physical laws have been in operation since the formation of the earth and for billions of years before that. It does not in any manner require that no sudden catastrophic events could have ever occurred, nor did it mean that in its prior early-1800's sense.

As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" ...

Where? Because all that Google can find for that quote is your very own Message 99. Cite your source!

Of course, we all know that Colbard has moved on to plague other fora with his foolishness.

But just in case he checks back in:
Colbard. Before you criticize or berate science for something, first learn something about science!

As I have told you repeatedly, ignorance does not work! We know that all too well. How do we knew that so well? Because we have tried it far too many times! And continue to try it!

You want your children to oppose evolution? Is the solution ignorance, to keep them from ever learning anything about evolution? No! The solution is to have them learn everything they possibly can about evolution so that they will know all of its weaknesses. You want your children to oppose science? Is the solution ignorance, to keep them from learning what science is and how it works and what it actually teaches? No! You want them to learn everything they possibly can about science so as to know all of its weaknesses. Have you learned nothing from Scripture (albeit the Chinese variety):

quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

We have this conceit that creationists are incapable of learning. That is not true. Creationists can indeed learn; they just simply learn the wrong lessons.

For example, in the preface of his most useful book, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple tells of his first encounter with "creation science" and motivation for writing his book, which was the 1975 visit and presentation to the US Geological Survey (USGS) at Menlo Park by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) luminaries and co-creators of "creation science", Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish. The overwhelming feedback that Gish and Morris received were the innumerable corrections of their abysmal misunderstanding of thermodynamics. From that, did the creationists learn that there were problems with their understanding of thermodynamics that needed to be corrected? No, what they learned was to never ever again present their claims to an audience that had any understanding of the science that they were zealously misrepresenting.

Creationists are indeed capable of learning from their mistakes, but they invariably learn the wrong lessons.

Colbard has learned from his time here. And has turned yet again towards the Dark Side of the Farce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 90
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


Message 105 of 106 (745583)
12-24-2014 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:42 AM


Colbard writes:
Astrophile writes:
What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

What is the point of this reply? It doesn't answer the question implied by my Message 91; in fact, it appears to have no relation to that question. Still, in an attempt to answer your question, no, I don't expect you to feel sorry for people who have devoted their whole lives to science. Why should you feel sorry for them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:42 AM Colbard has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022