Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 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 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 405 of 1053 (752070)
03-08-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by edge
03-08-2015 11:55 AM


Re: silt floats?
There's no reason why silt would separate from sediment to be deposited separately is there? But asteroid powder would have a separate origin and be deposited separately. And as for stuff floating to its ultimate depositional resting place how about the uprooted plants that became coal seams?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 11:55 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 12:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 409 of 1053 (752075)
03-08-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by edge
03-08-2015 12:09 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
Suggests that the Alps are not steeper and higher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 12:09 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 12:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 411 of 1053 (752077)
03-08-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by jar
03-08-2015 12:30 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
Then there should be evidence of their former height.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 12:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 12:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 429 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 3:09 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 412 of 1053 (752078)
03-08-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by edge
03-08-2015 12:13 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
It would turn "the whole world" into mud NOW too, except for the rockiest mountain areas, which I'm sure did NOT exist before the Flood even if some rocky areas did, which I don't know and have never speculated about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 12:13 PM edge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 415 of 1053 (752082)
03-08-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 12:34 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The job of a scientist is not just to dream up a new theory and then "think up ways to make it work". A good scientist always tries to debunk his own theories first, before presenting them publicly. His theory not only has to WORK, it has to work BETTER than all other theories that have been proposed or that he can think up.
But creationists have a different task whether you approve of it or not. Our job IS to reconcile scientific fact with the Bible. You may be content to let science destroy the Bible, some of us aren't. I'm no scientist but I'm not willing to let unbelievers trash God's word. That doesn't mean we should ever tolerate misrepresentations of actual facts, it just means we have to discover how the actual facts work into the Biblical framework we are given. This is the position that science has put us in. If we aren't doing science according to Hoyle, who cares?
Luie's asteroid theory is a good example. Luie and Walter really wanted to make volcanos work as the source of iridium. This theory sounded plausible. But as they drilled down to the details, they concluded that volcanos could not reasonably account for the amount of iridium that was seen. This would have required an extremely massive amount of volcanism, which would have left other evidence, which was missing. Luie was forced to the asteroid theory by the data. Luie realized that the asteroid theory would sound outlandish, and he tried his best to debunk it himself, but couldn't. No other theory accounted as well for the experimental data.
Good for them. Apparently they found the most plausible explanation. For a creationist that means we have to make use of it in terms of what the Bible shows us, or rethink the whole thing. There are creationists who are scientists who may do this rethinking, but otherwise we have to look for ways to reconcile it with the time factor and other information the Bible gives us.
I do this because I enjoy thinking about these things but also because other "Christians" don't seem to mind trashing God's word for the sake of "Science."
ABE: Whatever its merits, science is "the world" and it's the product of fallen humanity.
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?"
The world is against the gospel, to side with the world is dangerous. To trust your fallen intellect over the word of God is very dangerous.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 12:34 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Coyote, posted 03-08-2015 1:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 421 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 423 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 1:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 416 of 1053 (752083)
03-08-2015 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by jar
03-08-2015 12:42 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
If you have even a shred of evidence, which I doubt, it's your job to spell it out, not refer me to a lifetime of geological study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 12:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 418 of 1053 (752085)
03-08-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by jar
03-08-2015 1:00 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
In other words you don't have a shred of evidence that the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 424 of 1053 (752094)
03-08-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by jar
03-08-2015 1:28 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
That's less evidence than interpretation, jar. Give me some actual evidence please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 1:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 426 of 1053 (752096)
03-08-2015 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 1:40 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Since God is the author of both, nature and Scripture must completely agree. I see no need to fear or oppose truth in either realm.
Theoretically that is quite true. The problem is that science is a bunch of theories concocted by fallen humanity who could not care less whether they agree with the Bible or not. That's why creationists do what they do.
ABE: This is not a problem with the hard sciences, but only with the sciences of the past which are the ones that seriously impinge on the Bible. Old Earthism and Evolutionism. /ABE
When I see a disagreement between science and any particular interpretation of Scripture, at least one of the interpretations (of nature or Scripture) must be wrong, so I allow myself to question BOTH interpretations. Sometimes I allow science to change my interpretation of the Bible (but not to "destroy the Bible"). Sometimes I allow Scripture to change my interpretation of nature.
I have yet to see any reinterpretation of the Bible to accommodate science that is not just a trashing of the Bible. I cannot find the Old Earth in the Bible except by completely violating it.
Do you avoid persecution by taking the stance you do?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 1:40 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2015 1:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 431 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 3:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 432 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 4:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 439 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 8:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 434 of 1053 (752119)
03-08-2015 7:48 PM


"Evidence" -- ha!
Despite the information about the Appalachians coming from jar and edge it seems to me my original answer to the question about the difference in the appearance of age wasn't wrong: it's due to the different structure and the different rates of erosion. From all the diagrams I've seen the folds of the Alps ARE steeper than the Appalachians. And accordion type folds just are subject to more erosion than steeply upthrust mountains like the Rockies, granite or no granite.
As for the "evidence" given by jar that the Appalachians were originally much higher than the Alps, as I already said most of it isn't evidence but interpretation:
We have markers left where glaciers wore away at them really recently, just 20,000 years ago or so.
The 20,000 years is of course interpretation. I don't have a problem with the evidence for glaciers however, even though "markers" is pretty vague. And how this proves that the Appalachians used to be higher than the Alps is beyond me anyway.
We have sands from the Appalachians found many hundreds of miles away.
Sands FROM the Appalachians? How do you know they are FROM the Appalachians rather than simply the same sands in both places? And this proves what?
We have the angles of the stumps that are left.
What's a "stump" and how does it prove the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps?
We have the evidence of the climate across Pangaea over 400 million years ago.
Interpretation, of what "evidence" I have no idea. You obviously don't know what evidence is. And how does it prove that the Appalachians were once higher than the Alps?
We have the fact that parts (exactly the same materials and composition) were created in the same event that produced the Little Atlas mountains (now in Africa) and also parts of the Scottish highlands.
Also not evidence but interpretation, of what evidence there is no hint, you just call the interpretation "fact" obviously without the slightest idea of what evidence would be. And again, no hint as to how this would prove that the Appalachians were ever higher than the Alps anyway.
We have the evidence that they were not created in just one single event but rather a series of clollisions that pushed ocean floors up into mountains.
But of course you do not give the actual evidence of such collisions or separate events, just your interpretation of this supposed evidence which you aren't describing. You really don't know what evidence is, do you? And how any of this would show that the Appalachians were evder higher than the Alps is still a puzzle.
But the Appalachians are just one of the thousands and thousands, millions even, examples that prove the Earth is NOT 6000 years old and that None of the Biblical Floods actually happened.
But all that evidence which you haven't even bothered to describe is open to very different interpretations than yours and no doubt proves nothing of the sort.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by jar, posted 03-08-2015 8:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 446 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 9:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 435 of 1053 (752120)
03-08-2015 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by edge
03-08-2015 3:09 PM


Re: Why Creation scoence can never be more than lies and conjobs.
And now more mystification from edge.
Metamorphic minerals suggest that something more than 2 km of rock have been eroded from the current level exposed in the Appalachians.
Oh, and how does it suggest that?
This diagram shows several series of regional metamorphism in the continental setting, to which the Appalachians would have been subjected. Note the depth (pressure) values by the time one gets to granulite grades of metamorphism.
Properly speaking that's not a diagram, it's a chart and I have no idea what it purports to show with all its categories of rock types. An actual diagram of the mountain structures involved would possibly be more edifying but I know you aren't really interested in communicating anything anyway. You love to mystify and obfuscate and bully creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 3:09 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by edge, posted 03-08-2015 9:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 436 of 1053 (752121)
03-08-2015 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by RAZD
03-08-2015 4:22 PM


Re: silt floats? then there are layers above and below the iridium ...
Could you please boil down your voluminous posts to the essential point, whether silt could ride on the flood waters or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 03-08-2015 4:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by RAZD, posted 03-09-2015 9:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 437 of 1053 (752122)
03-08-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 4:17 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
Well, it was really none of my business anyway but thanks for the answer. I have a bigger problem with the "Christians" who come here to argue with me rather than support me than with the antiChristians.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 4:17 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 440 of 1053 (752129)
03-08-2015 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by kbertsche
03-08-2015 8:24 PM


Re: Iridium boundary layer
The problem is that science is a bunch of theories concocted by fallen humanity who could not care less whether they agree with the Bible or not.
While you could argue this for science in the 21st century, it's not true of the birth of modern science in the 17th century. Bacon, Kepler, and Galileo, were all devout theists. As the early scientific enterprise grew, the early scientists (or "virtuosi" in the parlance of 17th century England) tended to be not only theists, but Christians. And not only Christians, but Protestants. And not only Protestants, but Puritans, with theological views similar to those that you yourself hold.
Yes, I know. The development of science in the west could be attributed entirely to Bible-believing Christians, due to the Biblical presentation of a law-giving God and a lawful Nature, which wasn't the way the world was conceived by the pagans. The conception of law made it possible to expect to understand Nature. And that was a very productive idea for the most part, until Hutton and Darwin started making claims about the untestable past.
As Ian Barbour has written (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48):
quote:
Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits."
As Whitehead and others have argued, it was the Christian (especially Puritan) conception of God's unchanging character and God's providence that motivated these early scientists to study God's creation to try to uncover the truths which He had revealed there.
Absolutely. But that's REAL science. Sorry, but evolution and old earth geology are NOT real science.
ABE: This is not a problem with the hard sciences, but only with the sciences of the past which are the ones that seriously impinge on the Bible. Old Earthism and Evolutionism. /ABE
But it is the hard sciences (geology, physics, astrophysics) which provide the strongest support for an old earth and an old universe!
If it contradicts the Bible, and it does, it's not science. It is far more dangerous to contradict God's word than it is to contradict science. Nature and the Bible must agree, as you said, but what human beings think about Nature is subject to error. And when you get into the sciences of the past you are relying mostly on mere interpretation, that is nothing but fallible human ponderings, not real science, not testable, not replicable, just mental constructs.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2015 8:24 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 442 of 1053 (752131)
03-08-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by ThinAirDesigns
03-08-2015 8:50 PM


The only "sacred cow" here IS science. If people stop addressing me on this thread, I'll leave. I have no interest in being here except to answer the endless garbage that's thrown at me.
To be "anti YEC" is to be anti Biblical which is to be anti Christian which is to be anti God which is to be anti Truth.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 8:50 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-08-2015 9:04 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