Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (4 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,624 Year: 18,660/19,786 Month: 1,080/1,705 Week: 332/518 Day: 8/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 23 of 155 (752199)
03-09-2015 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
03-09-2015 12:31 PM


Because of tides and waves that deposited material in layers with time gaps in between. What, you prefer the nonsensical idea that the coal seams represent a time period?

So, you think that layers were laid down with "time gaps" but don't represent any type of "time period." What can that possibly mean? I have tried to point this out to you before that in your scenario the "time periods" are there... they just represent minutes or possibly hours rather than millions of years. But they undoubtedly represent "time periods."

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 13 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 12:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 1:21 PM herebedragons has responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 46 of 155 (752230)
03-09-2015 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
03-09-2015 1:21 PM


I don't recall you making that point

Not surprising, and I don't have time to dig through those GC threads to find that line of discussion - not that it would matter much anyway.

But anyway, now it seems as if you DO accept that the geological layers DO represent a specific "time period" but just a very, very short period of time compared to standard geological timing. So what you should do is propose an experiment or a model that demonstrates your premise that geological layers several feet thick can be deposited in hours or days and how the expected layering from coarse to fine could be violated and for example, be laid down fine - coarse - fine - coarse - etc (in one event, that is). We are asking for something that could support that idea not just speculating that it MIGHT have happened... we just don't know.

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 26 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 1:21 PM Faith has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 47 of 155 (752233)
03-09-2015 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
03-09-2015 2:04 PM


Re: say what?
Funny I hardly ever mention the Bible in discussing the Flood

What if you did not have the Biblical account... would you still think the evidence supports a global flood? Would you come to the same conclusion independent of the Bible?

I assume you will say "yes" although I really don't think that to be the case. The sole reason you hold to the idea of a global flood is that it is a "Biblical" position.

I'm speculating about the physical conditions that would pertain in the Flood just as everybody else does.

There is a big difference though. It's one thing to speculate about past events based on physical conditions that we can observe and test today. It's a completely different thing to speculate about past events based on physical processes that essentially violate the known laws of physics or misrepresent those physical processes we can observe today.

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 38 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 2:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-09-2015 3:55 PM herebedragons has responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 49 of 155 (752236)
03-09-2015 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
03-09-2015 2:30 PM


Re: say what?
Don't know why you have a problem with the water's being saturated with sediments, turbidity being expected by everyone who discusses the Flood, but an enormous quantity of sediments must have been washed off the land mass into the water in the early stage

How could fish have survived such sediment saturated water?

Try this experiment at home. Get a 29 gal aquarium and a goldfish (they are very hardy). Dump in enough silt to cover the bottom of the tank about 1 inch deep. Create enough turbulence to keep the silt suspended (this would be a fraction the the turbulence required to keep sand and gravel suspended) and see how long the fish survives. I doubt it would last 24 hours in those conditions - although goldfish can gulp air from the surface so it may last a couple days.

Now, I doubt you will be able to conduct this experiment, so how about just speculate as to how it would turn out. How long will a goldfish survive in such conditions? Where would they hide during the flood so that they could find food and fresh, breathable water?

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : clarification on how much silt to add


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 40 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 2:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 52 of 155 (752242)
03-09-2015 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tanypteryx
03-09-2015 3:55 PM


Re: say what?
Right. It is hard for people who don't actively engage in scientific research to understand that issues like the age of the earth are conclusions drawn for looking at data and evidence from multiple sources. They think that scientists begin with a premise and then interpret the data to fit. That process just simply could not work as a scientific endeavor - it would eventually fall completely apart.

Of course, we all know of cases where that DID happen - where researchers jumped to conclusions and tried to make the data fit their expectations. But in the end, when other researchers began to scrutinize the data, the original conclusions completely fell apart.

... they came to realize that the bible was incorrect and that the sedimentary layers were not caused by a worldwide flood.

Just to clarify my personal position... I wouldn't say the Bible was necessarily "incorrect". There is meaning and purpose behind the story that I consider to be "correct" and true. It's just that the events depicted in the story were written from the perspective of an ancient people, and we try to shoehorn our modern understanding of the world onto it. Does that make sense or do I need to explain more of what I mean?

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 51 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-09-2015 3:55 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-09-2015 8:35 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 66 of 155 (752290)
03-10-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
03-09-2015 10:47 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
Faith writes:

Retitled this thread because it's been taken over by Flood debunkers who mischaracterize my arguments and put up the usual straw man nonsense.

Here is your argument (at least one of them)...

Just THINK a bit. ALL the sediments have sediments above and below them. This can happen by settling out or by successive deposition by waves. Just think it through with an eye to how it COULD HAVE WORKED.

Now, jar has given you a specific example with which you can apply your argument and explain how these salt deposits can be layered with clay deposits by settling out or by successive deposits by waves. He is asking you to describe in more detail how this process could have occurred. Our observations suggest that these deposits take long periods of time to accumulate.

How is this mischaracterizing your arguments? How is this debunkery? How is this strawman nonsense?

We obviously don't have an "eye to how it could have happened." This is where you who are enlightened need to explain it better. Just saying "by settling out or by successive deposition by waves" is not good enough. When we learn about the physical processes involved in these types of deposits, there is a great amount of detail given... a detailed description of the process. It makes sense. If you say it happened a different way, then you need to describe why the standard way of thinking is wrong and how your idea works better - in detail.

Another good idea would be to propose an experiment we could do (even if only a thought experiment) that would lend credibility to the idea of waves depositing salts in successive layers interspersed with clays.

No point in me participating.

Is the real reason there is no point in you participating that you really don't have a good argument? Just "What ifs?"

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 6 by Faith, posted 03-09-2015 10:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM herebedragons has responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 76 of 155 (752315)
03-10-2015 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
03-10-2015 11:19 AM


Re: More Floody stuff from the other thread
somebody gets all involved in trying to prove the Flood didn't happen by getting minutely scientific about how particles settle out of water,

But that's how science works, Faith. We argue over details because that is what strengthens an argument. Believe it or not, science relies heavily on indirect evidence and inferences and it is those minute details that make the difference between a strong inference and a weak inference. This even more so true in modern science where all the easy, direct observations have been done.

As an example, I am studying plant pathology. So, I inoculate a plant with a potential pathogen and then observe disease symptoms on the plant some time later. I then conclude that said organism is a plant pathogen. Now realize that conclusion IS an inference. I did not actually witness the organism CAUSE disease nor did I actually observe the disease - I only observed the symptoms. So, what details, if you knew them, would make this inference stronger? What details, if left out, would make this inference weak?

You propose an inference about a particular formation and we ask for the details because those details, if left out, make your inference very weak. In addition, the assumptions we make regarding those details are contradictory to the inference you propose. For example, we assume that larger, denser particles will settle out before smaller particles. Is that not a valid assumption? What forces would be at play that would make that an invalid assumption?

And the next thing that happens is the subject is changed and somebody is demanding that I show how the Flood accounts for the salt beds.

That's not a change in subject... that is an opportunity to apply your "model." How does your model explain those formations?

Waves deposit sand on beaches, there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood.

Keep in mind that even in this case the sorting of particles by density and size still applies unless you can provide a reason why that assumption does not hold in a particular case.

How about you choose an example of your own to apply your model to. I really liked the Coconino Sandstone myself. Apply your model to the formation of the Coconino Sandstone; provide details as to how receding flood waters deposited that formation, show some calculations as to the rates of deposition that would be required to lay down that layer in a matter of days or weeks (whatever the time frame you think is plausible).

But this thread was a bully swarm long before that anyway.

Yeah, I can understand how you feel. But you can't just make an assertion and expect everyone to accept it - especially in a science thread. Before you make an assertion such as "there would have been waves as the land mass was exposed during the receding of the Flood." be prepared to defend that assertion... with plausible details.

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 67 by Faith, posted 03-10-2015 11:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 121 of 155 (752409)
03-11-2015 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
03-10-2015 11:46 PM


What I have found is that discussing the particulars is rather pointless since it is the basic premises of science that are being rejected. It seems more necessary and beneficial to discuss basic principals rather than specific evidence. For example, how we make inferences, how we use indirect evidence, how we test and verify theories, how and when we use assumptions, etc.

We all know the tired old adages "It's just a theory" or "It's still a fish." So, IMO, the more important point to be made is HOW and WHY we come to the conclusions we do, otherwise it can seem (to them) that our conclusions are a priori assumptions rather than conclusions based on the evidence.

There also seems to be great ignorance of basic scientific principals such as how gravity sorts particles, 2nd law of thermodynamics and so on. The kind of things you learn about in introductory science courses. Those are the things that need to be hammered away at.

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 109 by Coyote, posted 03-10-2015 11:46 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 122 of 155 (752410)
03-11-2015 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tanypteryx
03-11-2015 1:01 AM


"I wish Faith could see it from here."

There is no picture that can begin to do the GC justice or give even a hint at the sheer scale of the place. My visit to the GC was before I really started thinking about this whole young earth vs. old earth debate and pretty much assumed the earth was young, just as the Bible supposedly presents it. But I remember trying to imagine how those features could have possibly formed in a single flood event. It was just... indescribable...

There are those who have visited the GC and still hold that it was formed by the flood, but I can't imagine how they reconcile it. As I said, no words or picture can substitute for standing at the rim and looking out over that canyon. "Breath-taking" is all I got!

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 113 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2015 1:01 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 03-11-2015 11:06 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 11:16 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

herebedragons
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 144 of 155 (752451)
03-11-2015 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
03-11-2015 12:38 PM


BIG underground rivers then. Sheesh.

Here's an easy assignment for you. Look up "underground rivers" and get a good sense of how they form and the shape their caverns take. There is plenty of underground rivers that have been thoroughly mapped.

Then look up "buried canyons" - there is not as much information about buried canyons as there is on underground rivers, but you should be able to find a couple.

Then put the two images side by side and make a comparison.

After you come to a conclusions as to whether the two images could represent the same process, then get back to us and tells us what you found out.

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 140 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 12:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by edge, posted 03-11-2015 1:21 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 1:36 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019