Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
32 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,509 Year: 18,545/19,786 Month: 965/1,705 Week: 217/518 Day: 41/50 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 303 (242457)
09-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-12-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You example wont quite work Jar. The note needs to be from a third party observer and be signed:

-God


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM jar has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 98 of 303 (242634)
09-12-2005 3:17 PM


YECism can't get past the facts
YEC approaches to empirical science. Talk about a contradiction in terms. I mean, isn't that what Faith has finally come out and shown us all. There is no such thing as empirical science for YECs. There is the creation event, the flood, and that is the end of the discussion.

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Thus there can be no such thing as "Creation Science" or at least "Creation Empirical Science". This whole argument seems to just be about if Faith's beliefs are valid.

My whole take on this is simply, "So what?" That Faith has this belief means nothing to me. That she argues this belief is nothing to me. It only becomes an issue when she expects this belief to be promoted and accepted by others as more than just a religious belief. But so far to date she has not done that so really the whole argument of this thread is empty.

The reason I am here is to engage these beliefs when they are touted on their scientific merit as a form of pursuasion. I have a very close friend of mine who wrapped up in YECism and I had been seduced by its propaganda in the past. I have also seen what outgrowing the childlike beliefs of YECism can do to a person's faith the the Lord. I want to make sure that those who promote a YEC lie or distortion are met with the truth. I feel that without people like me, jar, Trixie, and others of faith who participate here that people who were like me seeking for the truth would see that the majority of it lies with people who have never accepted or have abandoned God.

When I took to the library and to the net to seek out answers to this whole enigma of my faith I came across this place very early in my search. It is hardly possible to search for anything regarding the EvC debate without having this site appear on one of the first pages. Here I found scientists, educators, and to my suprise a bunch of people who found peace with their Christianity while being able to abandon the myth of the Genesis creation. I hung around here for quite awhile before I joined in to be one more voice for Christians against YECism. I felt like I knew you all well even though I didn't participate. I was one of the "XX Guests" simply learning all your styles, attitudes, beliefs, and positions.

Now adays I just hope that every time I hear rediculousness like, "The rocks obviously had to be soft when they deformed" that I can be the voice that decisivly puts that down and does so AS A CHRISTIAN. The facts are not debatable and the biggest problem I discovered with YECism is that they simply distort or do not display the facts. Now this could be either due to ignorace like the many who come here, or out of greed for either money, souls, or both like the charlatans of the many creationist institutions or the likes of Kent Hovind, Ron Wyatt, etc.

So I say let them come and debate their ideas. Don't worry about if Faith's methodology is scientific or logical or valid or whatever. And when they miss on the facts like the inevitibly do simply call them on only the facts. Really, anyone with half a brain who is reading this forum should be able to see right through it. Their position fails from the very basic understanding of fact so why all this commotion over what is and what is not valid reasoning?

Lack of knowing the facts: Mutations don't happen.
Informing of the facts: Yes they do we have observed them...

Lack of knowing the facts: Novel traits do not appear.
Informing of the facts: Yes they do we have observed them...

Lack of knowing the facts: Sediment doesn't make flat layers.
Informing of the facts: Yes it does we observe it...

Lack of knowing the facts: There are no drastic erosional surfaces.
Informing of the facts: Yes there are here are examples...

Lack of knowing the facts: Layers are soft when they deform.
Informing of the fact: No they are not and here is why...

Lack of knowing the facts: Shallow surfaces erode faster than steep surfaces.
Informing of the fact: No they do not and here is why...

So Faith can go into her interpretations of IRH's data with all her presumtions and beliefs and she will falter on the facts just like every single YEC who has ever opened their mouth here or anywhere. So for whoever are the 3 "evos" in IRH's thread, just sit back and enjoy the ride. Ignore the flud talk and just concentrate on where the facts go south. I think you will find that the house built upon the sand will fall quite easily under its own weight.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 3:32 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:18 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 113 of 303 (242666)
09-12-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-12-2005 4:18 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Gotta love replies with substance.

Certainly those instances where you have gotten the facts wrong are a matter of public record. All anyone has to do is return to the threads where you made your statements in ignorance of the facts to see them.

Talking about missing the facts. You cannot even come to grips with the fact that you haven't been aware of the facts in the past. Show me where one of those examples is a mischaracterization. Show me where in those circumstances you actually knew what you were talking about.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:36 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 117 of 303 (242680)
09-12-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-12-2005 4:36 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Sorry but if you are going to make claims like that you are going to have to bring more than just your assertion.

Fact: Mutations happen.
Fact: Novel mutations happen.
Fact: Law of original horizontality
Fact: Burried river, canyon, island topography.
Fact: Fossil and structure strain.
Fact: High profile structures erode faster.

All of these are in contrast to claims you have made since you have been here. You did not know these facts or else you would have not made statements to the contrary. You cannot argue the facts. You have yet to demonstrate that you know anything about science except for what has been shown to you here at this forum.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:15 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 121 of 303 (242688)
09-12-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
09-12-2005 5:15 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Fine. I'll even give on the original horizontality. Do you dispute that you were ignorant of the other facts before you were told?

Are you going to make me dig up year old references? Do no not stand by what you posted in the past?


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:41 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 131 of 303 (242707)
09-12-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
09-12-2005 5:41 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Yes I dispute that as I learned quite a bit of it on my own googles.

Which I am not talking about.

I have always disputed the interpretation of everything on your list

I am not talking about interpretation.

but I do not dispute the facts themselves.

Yes you have. The first thing you did when you got where was disputed the facts about mutations. In fact you dispute them in your very next sentence!

I question that everything that is called a mutation is a genuine mutation and that awaits further study.

That these occur is not up for debate!

I dispute the interpretation of buried landscapes as long-lived phenomena, seeing them as very short-lived stages in the Flood in its gradual recession from the land which certainly involved temporary rivers and lakes.

So what. I wasn't talking about depositional environments. That wasn't in my list.

I do not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures but I do dispute that it's faster than the erosion of the folded Appalachians which exposed more erodable surface to erosion according to the diagram deerbreh posted

Even within the same sentence you have demonstrated that you do not understand the facts. You said you did not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures yet you still claim that the Appalachians are eroding fast. You are blatantly denying the fact. There is no arguing. The Appalachians are eroding slower than the Rockies based on their elevation and their profile. The more you get eroded the less you erode. FACT.

And you do get credit for informing me about strain in hard fossils and rock structures, but I'm still not convinced that this describes the formation of the Appalachians, though it doesn't matter if it does -- as you never gave any direct evidence of strain in their structure at all.

Oh yes I did!!! You just must not have read it. Message 150

Lets remember your initial ignorance of the facts with regards to erosion and deformation:

Faith previously writes:

Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.

Emphasis by me.

Faith previously writes:

Erosion of relatively soft sediments doesn't take millions of years. The Rockies were thrust up at steep angles, their highly compressed strata remaining parallel and intact. The Appalachians were buckled and folded, which exposed more surfaces to erosion.

I went back to the sedimentation thread to look up the lack of facts about buried topography. That was pretty much the whole thread so I couldn't find just 1 quote that really captured it. TO be fair I was also unable to find you a good example.

I am still digging in the archives for that first mutation thread you were in.

You are not the first and will not be the last. The primary deficit with nearly all of your arguments the moment you try you hand at empiricism is a basic lack of knowledge of the facts. This is not just a you thing. This is a YEC thing. Every single time. Every single article on every single YEC propaganda site. Every single debate with a Hovind or a Gish. If it is not ignorance it is deception. You get a free pass here because the posters and the mods assume it is the former.

This is not a stab. We have discussed this before in my "Why Won't Creationists Learn" thread. You know you lack, yet you do nothing. SO none of this should be a suprise or offensive to you.

All I am saying is that all this fuss over weather or not you should participate in IRH's thread is rediculous. I think your ban on the science forums should be lifted. I think you should be able to say whatever you want. You position is complete valid as a belief and especially since you have already stated that you DON'T want the school system changed or any other kind of political indoctrination. I am not here to change your mind. I have already decided that that is impossible. BY all means, show us what you got in IRH's thread. All this suspension and validity of reasoning is pure nonesense. It has no bearning on the legitimacy or impression of your debate.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:41 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 5:23 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 195 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 6:37 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 6:52 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 170 of 303 (242975)
09-13-2005 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
there is only one bear Kind, and the koala and the panda are types that got bottlenecked somewhere

ROFL

Here we go again. Failing on the facts. By the way did you read my last post? Message 131

Big difference between a koala and a panda. Koala is a marsupial, panda is a placental.

Don't worry though. This is a common creationist mistake. Simple innocent ignorance. Kind of like how most creationists will put the tasmanian wolf and an artic wolf in the same kind. Gotta love the awesome power of kinds!


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 2:37 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 3:09 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 4:49 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 178 of 303 (243008)
09-13-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Chiroptera
09-13-2005 3:09 PM


Re: Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
Which is flaming retarded.

The best you could get is to say that all mammals on the ark were marsupial and the placentals microevolved out of them which is "more" in line the evidence. Although going from a pouch to a placenta in just a few 1000 years is so unfathomably rediculous to begin with that the two propositions are just about equal in terms of their inanity.

But the point is just that even with regards to their own theories YECs simply fail right out of the gate with the facts. They don't know them. They don't bother to know them. It is exceedingly clear the more I get involved in the debate the more I feel that they do not CARE to know them.

That is why YECism is not empirical investigation and can never be. That is why it shouldn't matter if Faith goes on and on about her resolute idea that her YECism should be a debate presumtion. I say why not; and I'll put money that in less than 10 posts there is going to be a disagreement with the facts and the whole exercise gets blown out of the water just like it always does.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Chiroptera, posted 09-13-2005 3:09 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 182 of 303 (243019)
09-13-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by AdminBen
09-13-2005 3:39 PM


Re: Off Topic
Far me it from me to moderate the moderator but maybe you could be more explicit as to what you feel is off topic. I have tried with each of my posts to tie it back to my initial comment about YEC epiricism and how it is impossible due to this lack of grounding in the facts. I have used examples that, if taken and run with, could be considered off topic but the main point is there.

I tried to look back to see where if any things were getting off the topic of empiricism or Faith's presumtions. I really can't see where that has happened except maybe the minor diversion here or there. Maybe you could be more explicit in your moderating effort?

Thanks.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 3:39 PM AdminBen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 4:27 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 188 of 303 (243035)
09-13-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by AdminBen
09-13-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Off Topic
Yes it did thanks. It was just a bit hard to tell which direction the moderation gun was pointing. :)


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by AdminBen, posted 09-13-2005 4:27 PM AdminBen has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 195 of 303 (243080)
09-13-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 6:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
I'll answer both of your posts in one.

The point is only that the original Kinds possessed a great range of genetic possibilities for variation. It is even POSSIBLE that both marsupial and placental variations are genetically possible within a Kind, but until we get those many millions to set up labs for creationists to study genetics we'll never get to find out -- we can be sure evolutionists will never find out since they are bound to their paradigm and won't consider ours.

Here we have another good example of why YECism cannot be empiric. It may be possible that both marsupial and placental variations are genetically possible from within a kind but IN NO WAY are both bird and raptor variations genetically possible from within a kind. Or for that matter homo and pan variations. We will dismiss one apriori with no facts and accept another, again with no facts.

There are some animals that are hard to classify. Convergent evolution may be the evolutionist interpretation of what creationists would explain as the great variety of genetic possibilities built into the Kind. If marsupials are a Kind then the Tasmanian wolf would be a variation on that Kind.

So now we have solved the great mystery of how Noah fit all those animals onto the ark. There was a mammal kind, a reptile kind, a bird kind, etc. And after only a thousand or so years they all microevolved into the various species we have today. Except humans. It is both restrictive and endless how far YECism draws the lines apriori on species classification. Again with no facts.

I am not talking about interpretation.

Oh yes you are. The big problem for YECs is that evolutionists think they are talking about facts when they're only talking about their own evolutionist assumptions laid on the facts.

No I am not talking about interpretation. Again I am talking about non-debatable, tangible, verifiable, observable data that YECs constantly ignore, misrepresent, are ignorant of, or lie about.

Not that they occur but what they actually are IS.

What they ARE is not up for debate. They ARE insertions, deletions, point mutations, etc that DO happen randomly that may or may not change the coding sequence of the DNA. This is non-negotiable.

Sigh. Well, I'm not going to look for it now in the middle of answering this post, but what WAS it if it wasn't depositional environments you were talking about?

I had a finite list of things for which I was certain you had been wrong about the facts in the past. I recanted on the horizontality one when I couldn't find the original reference. No where in my finite list of facts did I mention depositional environments because they are an interprative tool.

No, I claim that the Appalachians HAVE eroded fast, not that they ARE eroding fast. Past tense. NOW they are eroding slower because of the less erodable surface at this point. Now less fast-eroding surface is exposed because those highly erodable portions have eroded away, leaving the less erodable, and according to my YEC conjecture, the earlier erosion would have carved them down in the last few thousand years to their current condition. So, to summarize, the initially faster erosion has brought them to a point where they are now less erodable. Has to do with the erodability of the exposed sediments, not just elevation and profile.

Yet earlier, with regards to why the Rockies are less eroded than the Appalachians you said:

The Rockies were thrust up at steep angles, their highly compressed strata remaining parallel and intact. The Appalachians were buckled and folded, which exposed more surfaces to erosion.

That you cannot see why those two statements contradict each other is even more telling then the fact that you struck out with the original statement. Not to mention that you didn't understand what it meant when Nuggin brought the rock type into the discussion, not to mention your dismissal when I called you on it. Once again, a clear demonstration of a lack of grounding in the facts.

This site deerbreh posted also gives the OE interpretation that the Appalachians were formed by the collision of the continents, implying many driftings to and fro I guess (?), but the creationist explanation that occurs to me is that they formed in the initial breaking apart of the continents, no collision, and this would be because of the pushing-apart force at the continental ridge that separated them. http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/brochures/sideling.html

The more you post, the more you get the facts wrong. Or maybe you can start a thread to tell us all how divergent action can cause compressional structures. You keep returning to that link as if it actually means something about what you just said.

You don't know how to distinguish the facts from the theory. Nor do AIG, IRC, etc. Nor do Hovind, Gish, etc. And it is all demonstrable. That is why I think there is no harm in you being allowed back into the science fora with your presumption of the flood and the presuption of creation. As much as I think your arguments are rediculous my whole motive for joining this thread was to defend your right to have your forum privs restored. This is because in my opinion there is no theory based on your presumptions that would ever even get off the ground.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 204 of 303 (243305)
09-14-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
09-13-2005 6:52 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Not following you. Seems to me they NOW lack the exposure that the Rockies have, and the more highly erodable surfaces have already been eroded. Why isn't this a sufficient possible explanation?

In order to keep this sub-thread on topic I will just say that the situation you are describing is impossible. The Appalachians cannnot have "beat" the Rockies in an erosion race to the extent that we see them today and part of that fact is even supported by the link you keep referring to. If you would like to start a thread about this I will join you there.

I have the impression from the diagrams at the link that the erodable rocks have BEEN eroded down to the syncline configuration, and these highly erodable rocks aren't granite. The erosion slows where granite and other less erodable rocks are the most exposed surface.

The whole point of me bringing up the granite example in this thread was to point out that when it was first brought up you seemed to dismiss it as of little importance. From this side of the fence it looks as though you either don't know what the fundamental difference is between granite and other rocks or you didn't understand why it was important to the discussion at hand. Again, we won't get into that here becuase the thread where that discussion took place is closed but feel free to ask for clarification elsewhere with regards to the specifics of granite and how it affects the erosion argument. For the purposes of this thread it is simply one of a list of failures with regards to empiricism.

You haven't convinced me of that. In fact you haven't even addressed what I've actually said.

If you are going to participate in the debate then saying things like this is pure hubris. Why can't it be simply that you don't understand what I am talking about? Especially since you have both demonstrated and admitted ignornace with regards to these issues in both this post and in the past. Yet here you strongly proclaim that I simply haven't addressed what you have said. That is ALL we are talking about; what you say, why you say it, and why it is not empricial.


Faith previously writes:

Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.

And your point is? You don't give the context of this quote and in dealing with four or five posters I'm not inclined to look such things up, but IIRC you challenged me to explain where the sediments that formed the strata CAME FROM. I came up with an explanation and I have no clue to what your objection to it is from what you have said here.

The quote dosen't need context as it incorrect on the facts all by itself. This quote was the original one that motivated my post to you about the strain because it is obvious by this quote, by itself, that you did not understand that sediments must be lithified prior to deformation. Here you have deposition, deformation, then lithification. That is backwards and contrary to fact for the extrodinarily vast majority of all geologic formations.

First, I have, I believe, shown that what you are calling facts are sometimes not facts but interpretations of the facts and yes YECs dispute most evolutionist interpretations.

You will have to explicitly point out where you have done this because it most certainly has not been in this thread with regards to the facts I have been using as examples. In other areas such as our discussion about depositional environments I will give you that that is an interpretive tool. That is my whole point in this thread is simply that you have not done what you just claimed. Some things that you lable as interpretation are facts and YECs in general seem to have trouble distinguishing the two. There is fact and then there is theory. You can argue the theory all day long with whatever presumptions you like but you cannot argue the facts. My original list of facts and the new ones we have discovered in this discussion are explicit miscues of fact that are prevalent in YECism.

Second, most YECs who come here are not scientists.

Nor am I. I just make sure that when I say something factual that I can verify it. You and other YECs who have posted here don't seem constrained by any such standard.

Third, while superficially one would expect that this would be a great place to learn some science, in fact there's something about the set-up that makes that extremely difficult, probably the hostility for starters.

The hostility is a total product of the specific poster and the specific thread. I have mentioned TheLiteralist as a good example of someone who came in here with YEC beliefs yet a bit of humbleness with regards to his lack of knowledge. In this initial threads he participated in there was a lot of questions that many were happy to answer that helped him raise much more interesting objections to things. Sure he got SOME flak but that is going to be partially true for any YEC who gets a brand new start here without any of the history that some of us have.

And fourth, I've learned a LOT about geology since I've been here, and I've spent HOURS researching various questions online. Just one particular, very specific, very limited, problem can take up hours of research -- the Coconino in the Grand Canyon for instance -- and since a YEC has to do the extra work of learning plus translating information from Evospeak into ordinary English it is a doubly daunting task. THEN, on top of that, the constant refrain that I'm unwilling to learn is so unfair that it rather erodes my enthusiasm for learning more.

Maybe I should have stated it differently. It may not be that you are unwilling to learn but when you state things as facts that are explicitly not facts it sure looks that way to me at least. It could be as simple as just changing the way you present you ideas. Instead of:

"The obviously rapidly deposited layers deformed and then changed into rock."

can become.

"Why couldn't the sediment have been deposited rapidly, deformed, and then changed into rock?"

One of them is an empiric investigation, the other is a strike out on the facts.

After that my presentation of the strain you would have added that knowledge to your toolset. It may not completely solve the issue of the timing of it all but at least the order, which is a fact, would no longer be an issue. We need to start the debate with the same set of facts or all it does is become....well....the mess that most of those threads ended up as. Once we know that things happen deposition->lithification->deformation we can then have a more meaningful discussion about how long that took.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 6:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 224 of 303 (243440)
09-14-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Ben!
09-14-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Doing empirical investigation with YEC FAITH
I'm workin on Jazzns in IRH's thread. I'm either going to get kicked out by IRH, Jazzns is going to get pissed off and refuse to do what I'm asking for, or Jazzns is going to do what I want. We'll see what happens.

Maybe you should make it clearer in here in this thread where it is on topic exactly what it is you are wanting me to do. All I have done so far in IRH's thread is correct a missed fact. I am in no way impinging on Faith's ability to theorize about how the flood would create those structures. IN fact, in THIS entire thread I have been arguing that you little experiment should be allowed. It looks like it has been.

I want to see the ACTUAL issues, the EVIDENCE addressed.

The problem is that the discussion cannot get off the ground if the discussion participants cannot recognize the difference between what is evidence and what is theory. That is all I am trying to do there.

I have no interest in what Faith has to say about how those structures form just as long as the facts aren't reversed or ignored. The continents were pulled not pushed apart. This is non-negotiable and her theory that talks about that must explain HOW they were pulled apart.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 4:10 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 6:10 PM Jazzns has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 227 of 303 (243457)
09-14-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
09-14-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
See my unfortunately off topic Message 220 above for my reasoning about how the continents were pushed apart from the continental ridge. There is no pulling action happening, except perhaps in the Pacific trenches, but as I understand it, those are the result of the action that originates in the Atlantic ridge, the uprising magma there, and that PUSHES the earlier cooled magma away from the ridge, and that is what PUSHES the continents away from each other as it gets the whole plate system moving away from the continental ridge.

The source of the movement of all the plates is the uprising magma and that exerts a pushing action.

Well I am sorry but you are wrong. The volcanism at the mid atlantic ridge is caused by the rifting not a cause of the rifting. Since it is off topic for this thread I suggest you take further inquiries about this back to IRH's thread or a new thread about divergent boundaries.

I would say that you are simply insisting on the establishment position, but in this case I've googled the subject quite a bit and have not found ONE mention of a PULLING action on the continents.

Well then either your googling has produced incorrect information or you have not correctly read it. Magma does not push plates. My usage of the word "pulling" is with regards to what is happening AT the boundary. Sorry for the mix up about that.

You don't seem to be clear when you are talking about a fact versus an interpretation of a fact, and that is certainly the case with evolutionism and OE in general. It is just about impossible to find a fact in the morass of Evo and OE interpretations in the description of ANY phenomenon, geological or biological.

Well what I am talking about here are fact and however much time you spent googling about tectonics does not change the fact that the mid atlantic ridge is a rift center and is not pushing anything. If you want to know why, start a topic and I will be glad to explain it.

Ben is going to need to give a lecture on the difference between fact and theory.

The only one here who has not been able to tell the difference between fact and theory has been you and Ben so far. Even this mildly amusing attempt of yours to counter the facts one again simply further shows that you don't understand them.

{ABE}

See Message 1 for more details.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-14-2005 04:34 PM

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-14-2005 06:37 PM


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 6:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-15-2005 3:58 PM Jazzns has responded
 Message 242 by Ben!, posted 09-16-2005 10:34 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2196 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 229 of 303 (243886)
09-15-2005 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PurpleYouko
09-15-2005 3:58 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
As I have discovered, pulled and pushed are bad words.

Take a look at the links and information thread I started on divergent boundaries. There I explain.

The observation is simply that the plates are moving in opposite direction. That in combination with the type of faulting, the rifting, and the type of volcanism is why "pulling" is a better description than "pushing". I explain in much greater detail in the other thread but the notion of a pushing force at the divergent boundary that is driving the plates appart is impossible. The only kind of "pushing" you can say that is happening is that each plate is "pushing" ITSELF forward in opposite direction but not OFF OF the other plate.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-15-2005 3:58 PM PurpleYouko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by PurpleYouko, posted 09-15-2005 4:19 PM Jazzns has 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