Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 314 of 1053 (751940)
03-06-2015 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by RAZD
03-06-2015 9:18 PM


Re: green river varves
Yes, ThinAir, you and others should stop answering me. It's the only reason I'm on the thread you know, answering all the blithering nonsense that's thrown at me,. Just ignore me, I'll go away. I said all I wanted to say in the first post.
But that striated fossil is sure purty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2015 9:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 317 of 1053 (751943)
03-06-2015 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by edge
03-06-2015 9:22 PM


Re: green river varves
They are logical conclusions from accurate observations, to anyone who knows how to think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:22 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 318 of 1053 (751944)
03-06-2015 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by edge
03-06-2015 9:25 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Gosh, and you're logically challenged too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:25 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 321 of 1053 (751947)
03-06-2015 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by edge
03-06-2015 9:29 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
If you had an ounce of scientific imagination you wouldn't have to ask such nonsensical questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:29 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 323 of 1053 (751949)
03-06-2015 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by edge
03-06-2015 9:53 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
No, I wish you had the basic scientific imagination, or basic intelligence, and the honesty, to grasp my simple objective point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:53 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 325 of 1053 (751951)
03-06-2015 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by edge
03-06-2015 9:56 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
I'm making such a simple obvious point that to deny it and evade it as you do shows either inferior intelligence or stubborn animosity or both. And your silly accusatory generalizations in trying to deal with what I'm saying just compound the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 9:56 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 10:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 327 of 1053 (751953)
03-06-2015 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by edge
03-06-2015 10:06 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
It doesn't need explanation. If you don't get it something is missing in your wiring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by edge, posted 03-06-2015 10:06 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 331 of 1053 (751961)
03-07-2015 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by ThinAirDesigns
03-07-2015 9:05 AM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The rim of the Grand Canyon is only the Permian, the KT boundary is higher. The question is whether the iridium shows up in the Grand Staircase to the north of the Grand Canyon, whose layers climb from the Permian to the Holocene.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-07-2015 9:05 AM ThinAirDesigns has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 338 of 1053 (751971)
03-07-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by NoNukes
03-07-2015 10:01 AM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
When you and RAZD and ThinAir continue to misrepresent my point of view you just keep me posting on this thread where I didn't want to be in the first place except to make a brief comment. I did not want to get into a discussion with edge because I didn't want to be on this thread at all, AND I know where those discussions go too. I've already been accused of "hijacking" this thread when I'm not the one prolonging the discussion. This has happened many times before and in the past I wasn't careful enough to cut off lines of discussion that others kept bringing up. I hoped to be more alert here, but I keep being required to defend myself from misrepresentations. ThinAir isn't even thinking clearly enough to know that the age of a canyon would have nothing to do with the deposition of the layers exposed in the walls of that canyon.
edge to Faith writes:
You keep saying things like this, but you never say why it is so.
The answer ought to be pretty obvious.
No discovery can be inconsistent with the Flood, because Flood believers will just invent properties for massive amounts of water that can reproduce any phenomenon. Because the Flood happened in the past, and you weren't there, then whatever they say is beyond challenge.
I have never made any such insane claim. What I've said about the Flood is perfectly reasonable. You could say the same thing about establishment Geology, that it just invents whole scenarios to fit their ridiculous idea that a solid slab of rock that spans thousands of square feet miles of geography represents a whole time period with its own flora and fauna.
Of course if you know anything about chemistry, geology or physics, that knowledge simply interferes with the spiritual discernment necessary to know the truth. Or something like that.
This is a pernicious misrepresentation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 10:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 12:02 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 340 of 1053 (751975)
03-07-2015 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by edge
03-07-2015 11:31 AM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Alrighty, I guess I'm on this thread like it or not.
This refers back to the question of unconformities, which some YECs strenuously deny. And yet, there is the evidence...
The only kind of unconformity YECs deny is the purported absence of particular strata that establishment theory says should have been there instead. And speaking of evidence, nice clean contact lines may even exist where this "missing layer" is supposed to have been.
Otherwise we have other explanations for other kinds of unconformities. such as angular unconformities, but I have explained these not in terms of the Flood but in terms of the tectonic activity that must have followed the Flood.
Of course, it can all be explained by the flood!
A purported absence is certainly very easy to explain by the Flood, since we wouldn't expect such a catastrophe always to supply the layer Geology expects to have been there.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by edge, posted 03-07-2015 11:31 AM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 342 of 1053 (751980)
03-07-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by NoNukes
03-07-2015 12:02 PM


headlock
Misrepresent my argument and I do feel required for the sake of preserving my point of view to post here. Since you are one of the offenders let's see you perform a headlock on yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 12:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by ringo, posted 03-07-2015 12:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 346 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 12:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 347 of 1053 (751986)
03-07-2015 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by NoNukes
03-07-2015 12:29 PM


Re: headlock
No, it's an example of you reading out of context as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 12:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 351 of 1053 (751992)
03-07-2015 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by kbertsche
03-07-2015 12:28 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The thing is, the existence of a worldwide deposition of iridium can be explained in terms of the Flood of Noah too, as evidence of a meteor hit during the Flood, dispersing its iridium along with all the sediments the Flood deposited. I've mentioned it many times here and HERE's one of those posts.
Faith, the problem with your position is not the Bible, or Creation, or even Noah's Flood. The problem is flood geology, which is extra-biblical, pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Well, I can't discover anything in the Bible that justifies any age determinations older than 6000 years from Creation or about 4300 years from a worldwide Flood that there is absolutely no doubt occurred. Just can't. All the efforts to make any of it older violate the Bible and are clearly just a giving-in to worldly thinking. As for "flood geology" there are different ways of putting it together and I don't see it as a finished theory but a work in progress, though I don't think anything I've said, or any creationists I'm aware of either, violates observed facts.
The problem is illustrated by what you say above. Flood geology does not help with the source of Ir. You still need an asteroid/meteor to provide the Ir.
Why is this a problem? Nobody's trying to EXPLAIN everything by the Flood, simply understand how it all works together so that there is no contradiction. There are lots of reasons creationists think asteroid or meteor activity would have been associated with the Flood. The only real disconnect with contemporary science is the timing, and all I can do with that is wait for it to be resolved. I really do seriously think that establishment science's explanation of the strata and the fossils is absurd on the face of it, no matter what difficulties we may encounter in trying to explain it all by the Flood.
The big problem for a Christian is the scientific contradiction of God's word so casually accepted by modern science, and I really don't see how any Christian can just blithely ignore this and accept unbelievers' science over God's word. Sure, in the service of defending God's word we can run afoul of actual facts, but I'm trying not to do that and don't see that I have.
If you've got a large asteroid, which would have thrown lots of particles into the upper atmosphere, you've already got a good mechanism for spreading and dispersing the Ir worldwide. You don't need a worldwide flood to spread the Ir.
I'm not arguing for NEEDING the Flood to explain it, just for its being explainable in the context of the Flood. If such an asteroid hit during the Flood period it would most likely have hit IN the flood waters which were carrying all the sediments and dead creatures washed off the land mass as well. It COULD have hit either while the water was rising or falling and not completely covering the land so that's another scenario to consider, depends on when the layers got laid down. But the task is to explain how the iridium got dispersed in the Flood context that sees the strata as built up during that event.
In fact, postulating a worldwide flood to spread the Ir creates more problems. According to flood geology, very thick layers of rock were laid down by a worldwide flood. If the flood laid down many meters or kilometers of material, why is the Ir excess concentrated into a single layer only a few centimeters thick? Floods can sort material by particle size or by density. But they can't sort material by chemical composition (or by isotopic concentration)! The Ir should have been spread throughout most, if not all, of the flood sediments, not concentrated into a thin layer.
So we have to find an explanation for that. I can't just dismiss it based on your ponderings you know, I can't see any other explanation for the strata than the Flood, the establishment explanations hitting me as extreme absurdity besides flying in the face of God's word, so I have to expect that there is yet to be found a good explanation for how the iridium got dispersed in a thin clay layer at the boundary of one of the layers.
ABE: But you make a very common error here when you talk about what "floods" can do. THE Flood simply cannot be compared with any other "floods." It covered the earth, it would have involved ocean movements among other differences. /ABE
This is the problem with flood geology. It may sound superficially plausible to a non-scientist, but as you drill down you will find that it does not and can not account for scientific details.
So it's incomplete, so establishment geology has a head start. I can't see any other way to make sense of God's word and I'm already convinced of the basic facts about the strata and the fossils so for me it's just a matter of time before we have a good explanation for the details you think it can't account for. But you know what, I think you are most likely overlooking some good explanations that are already accepted by creationists.
Flood geology is not much more than a hand-waving plausibility argument.
That's how I see establishment geology despite its greater plausibility in some areas.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2015 12:28 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 352 of 1053 (751993)
03-07-2015 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by kbertsche
03-07-2015 1:21 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
But the asteroid impact hypothesis does not postulate an asteroid made of pure Ir. The asteroid would have been largely iron, with a small amount of Ir dissolved in the iron. Some of the particles thrown into the atmosphere would have been iron from the asteroid; other particles would have been composites of asteroid iron and earth crustal material.
But then I'd like to know exactly what the "iridium layer" is composed of. Not pure iridium but some iron, and what about the "clay" it's part of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2015 1:21 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 2:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 355 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2015 2:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 356 of 1053 (751997)
03-07-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by NoNukes
03-07-2015 2:14 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Maybe Creation Science can predict and explain a lot of things I'm not personally able to do since I'm not a scientist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2015 2:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024