Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
567 online now:
candle2, dwise1, PaulK, Tanypteryx (4 members, 563 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 34 (15252)
08-12-2002 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by wj
08-12-2002 3:07 AM


As it comes from a work titled "Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dates", I would suppose that it is not out of context.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wj, posted 08-12-2002 3:07 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by wj, posted 08-12-2002 3:52 AM blitz77 has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 34 (15256)
08-12-2002 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by blitz77
08-12-2002 3:34 AM


Not even an abstract of the paper? It would appear that the author sees valid use for radiocarabon dating; otherwise the paper wight be titled something like "The complete abuse and unreliability of radiocarbon dating"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by blitz77, posted 08-12-2002 3:34 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by blitz77, posted 08-12-2002 4:59 AM wj has taken no action

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 34 (15262)
08-12-2002 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by wj
08-12-2002 3:52 AM


I can't find the abstract of the paper-using many different search engines (google, alltheweb, altavista, hotbot, etc).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by wj, posted 08-12-2002 3:52 AM wj has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20745
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 20 of 34 (15292)
08-12-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by wj
08-12-2002 3:07 AM


wj writes:

Well I'm not prepared to give up the ghost yet, even though Mr P has unmasked the quote from Pensee as actually being from Velikovsky. What do they say about strange bedfellows?

Perhaps I'm not picking up on any irony and sarcasm, but Velikovsky's views on scientific matters shouldn't be invested with any credibility. His best known work, Worlds in Collision, attempts to draw correlations between astronomical and Biblical events. According to Velikovsky, the earth suffered near collisions with Venus once and Mars twice some thousands of years ago.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by wj, posted 08-12-2002 3:07 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by wj, posted 08-12-2002 8:10 PM Percy has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 34 (15313)
08-12-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
08-12-2002 12:20 PM


Actually Percy, I think Mr P's message naming Velikovsky rated higher on the irony and sarcasm scales.

Blitz, maybe I can simplify matters. Do you have any "quotes" which can be verified for context?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 08-12-2002 12:20 PM Percy has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 22 of 34 (15368)
08-13-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
08-11-2002 8:28 AM


[QUOTE][B]I was referring to the layers underneath the lava flows-which by inference should be older shouldn't they?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Generally but not necessarily. Not if the flow is in an overthrust or if it is actually a sill.

[QUOTE][B]And how can that explain why the lava flows can give millions of years while the layers underneath only a few hundred?
[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I am frustrated with the above quote because I pointed out that 14C is useless above about 50k. Now, knowing that, *why* would a competant researcher attempt 14C on a layer that, by the principle of superposition, is too old for 14C to be reliable? The answer is that
nobody would, unless that person is a YEC, once again ignoring the common sense warnings of 14C to "prove" a young Earth. Such behavior can be described as nothing less than disgraceful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 8:28 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by blitz77, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 AM gene90 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 34 (15420)
08-14-2002 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by gene90
08-13-2002 10:31 AM


quote:
Generally but not necessarily. Not if the flow is in an overthrust or if it is actually a sill.

However, some of the flows is not an overthrust or a sill--unless you are saying that it could happen over a square mile?

[/quote]

I am frustrated with the above quote because I pointed out that 14C is useless above about 50k. Now, knowing that, *why* would a competant researcher attempt 14C on a layer that, by the principle of superposition, is too old for 14C to be reliable? The answer is that
nobody would, unless that person is a YEC, once again ignoring the common sense warnings of 14C to "prove" a young Earth. Such behavior can be described as nothing less than disgraceful.[/quote]

Since 14C is useless, then why would it still give a young date? So are we supposed to just ignore the dates which do not fit in with our model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by gene90, posted 08-13-2002 10:31 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 10:04 AM blitz77 has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 24 of 34 (15427)
08-14-2002 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by blitz77
08-14-2002 7:16 AM


[QUOTE][B]However, some of the flows is not an overthrust or a sill--unless you are saying that it could happen over a square mile?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Of course it can happen over a square mile. Or tens of square miles.

[QUOTE][B]Since 14C is useless, then why would it still give a young date?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Did you or did you not read my post?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by blitz77, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 AM blitz77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-14-2002 10:13 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 34 (15429)
08-14-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by gene90
08-14-2002 10:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]However, some of the flows is not an overthrust or a sill--unless you are saying that it could happen over a square mile?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Of course it can happen over a square mile. Or tens of square miles.

[QUOTE][B]Since 14C is useless, then why would it still give a young date?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Did you or did you not read my post?


Gene,

Can you you briefly describe 'overthrust' and 'sill' for me?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 10:04 AM gene90 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-14-2002 1:38 PM John has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 26 of 34 (15435)
08-14-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


While my posts may have seemed to others like, refute this, I think this stems from a misuderstanding on how I actually do think in biology that can go to conclude by the end of the sentence for the positions of creation or evolution in an epistemology of time that I may purposely not spell out or attempt so subscription to but may actually hinder me from resonding to the terms as you have them periodialized for I differ from B. Russel in that I think to the geometry of my attention NOT by logic from geodesics thus I would rather read Derrida than that place in Russel's thought where he says all else is "words" because I do, like Mayr, want to find that biology has its own reputable science dept when I go to bed and have breakfast thus for what you mean by brining in "emprics" could be the same problem I have with Mr. Rusell from not feeling compelled to his deductions logical enough between physics and perception but I do percieve that Quine was less accurate to do away with the plurivocal use of word "order" that Ruseel may have mistranslated but is logically clear for whatever in Whitehead he may have been inclined to disagree with the terms of which for me made me at once THINK of Pascal for whatever pretending Derrida may do to answer this question as I remark on the preliminaries to respond to your cut n paste I understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3877
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 27 of 34 (15439)
08-14-2002 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
08-14-2002 10:13 AM


quote:
Gene,

Can you you briefly describe 'overthrust' and 'sill' for me?


Butting in, for lack of anything better to do in my life -

See "sill" and "thrust fault" at:
http:///WebPages/Glossary_Geology.html

Essentially, a sill is an intrusive igneous rock body, that superficially mimics a volcanic flow.

A thrust fault is such that, it is possible for older rock layers to be physically moved to be on top of younger rock layers (opposite of the normal superposition). The upper rocks (the upper plate of the fault) are "overthrust" over the lower rocks (the lower plate of the fault).

Regards,
Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-14-2002 10:13 AM John has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 08-14-2002 4:14 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3054 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 34 (15442)
08-14-2002 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Minnemooseus
08-14-2002 1:38 PM


[QUOTE][B]Essentially, a sill is an intrusive igneous rock body, that superficially mimics a volcanic flow.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I probably should have defined a sill in my post to avoid being accused of being disingenuous (a sill, by definition is not really a "lava flow" because it doesn't happen on the surface) but since we are talking about stratigraphy I felt, based on past experiences, that it should be mentioned as a possibility.

My prime concern is this use of 14C on rock layers that are too old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-14-2002 1:38 PM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 34 (15558)
08-17-2002 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by blitz77
08-11-2002 8:25 AM


Blitz, are there any quotes from your message #9 which can be verified in context? Not that it is particularly important because C14 is not used in dating rocks. But it does illustrate the paucity of creationist evidence when they rely on quote mining to try and support a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 8:25 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by blitz77, posted 08-18-2002 4:35 AM wj has replied

  
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 34 (15595)
08-18-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
08-10-2002 10:46 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
many of them do not realize that if you take a look at the Hebrew used in Genesis, there is no way in which the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 can mean anything other than what it says, literally. Quote Professor Barr, who at the time was Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford-
quote:
Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours as we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the biginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the gigures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

May we back it up for a second? With all respect to Prof. Barr, I'd like to disagree. While Hebrew scholars may rely upon the traditionally held interpretation of Gen 1-11 as described above, most scientists who have gone back to the Hebrew text feel quite differently. Is Barr actually saying that there are not three perfectly equal interpretations of "YOWM" ("day")? While it is true that this noun, attached to an ordinal (second, third, etc), refers to a 24-hour period elsewhere in the Bible, there are no other situations that would require the interpretation of YOWM as "era" or "epoch". It is a valid translation, though, and now that we have cosmological (forget the geology, we'll just continue to run in circles) evidence for the ~age of the universe, we know how to translate this passage correctly.
Further, the first six creation periods (YOWMs) were closed with the repeater "...there was evening, and there was morning..." The same can not be said of the seventh day. Further passages in Psalms validate that the age of rest (the seventh YOWM) continues through the present. We see this in the natural as the appearance of homo sapiens coincides with the end of macrospeciation as we know it. Yes, certain species will continue to adapt and subdivide on a micro-level, and may realize strains that do not cross-breed with previous strains. But extinctions rumble on unabated with no large-scale speciation balance.
The eventual point is that many Christians with even a basic respect for science understand that the evidence left behind by the Creator contradicts Prof. Barr's interpretation, and evolution is often all that is left. I used to feel the same. Fortunately, I discovered a considerable group of scientists that have taken the time to research the Hebrew as well as the cosmology of the thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 10:46 AM blitz77 has taken no action

  
degreed
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 34 (15596)
08-18-2002 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006
08-09-2002 9:45 PM


I don't see many people giving ["2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory?"] a shot, so let's have some fun. I would say (because many scientists smarter than i are already saying it) that there are far too many features of our universe that have been fine-tuned to support life to draw any statistically valid conclusion other than design. Sagan & Co tried the math, but they failed to list all of the constants (solar mass, rotational period, surface gravity, Oxygen:Nitrogen:CO2:Water vapor ratios) etc that must be present to present the possibility of life. We also now accept that silicon and boron are no longer acceptable substitutes for Carbon as a basis for life.
Dr. Ross ("The Fingerprint of God" 1989) does an excellent job of listing the various constants required in a universe, solar system, and planet capable of supporting life. Let's say for brevity's sake that there are a lot.
Is this evidence for design as required for question (2)? If you roll 0 on a roulette table 1,000,000 times in a row, would you assume random chance? I think we like to call that a fixed table. Yet cosmology shows that greater odds than these are necessary if we are to suppose that we exist on a whim of nature and a couple of miraculously self-assembling amino acids...
Lots of generalities here, i know - call it a launching pad.

btw, i've done a horrible job following up in previous threads (insert poor excuse re: work and family); apologies in advance if i fail again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-09-2002 9:45 PM acmhttu01_2006 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022