Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 824 (718888)
02-09-2014 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by shalamabobbi
02-09-2014 12:18 PM


Re: more geology
Sand does get transported in ocean water:
Source of Beach Sand
where stream erosion has carried away the sand stored in the terrace to the sea for transport to UCSB by longshore currents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-09-2014 12:18 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 182 of 824 (718891)
02-09-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
02-09-2014 12:02 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
Faith writes:
Which we have to assume was sorting the Flood did, for whatever reason.
okay, what reason?
no, honest question. in science, old models are continually overturned for newer ones if they do a better job of explaining the evidence (and make a testable claim that can work towards verifying the new argument while disproving the old). so... propose a mechanism for hydrologic sorting that results in an apparent evolutionary history of fossils, and makes a prediction not accounted for the theory of evolution we can test and verify.
i'm pretty sure there's a nobel prize in this.
Since the conventional time scale is pure fantasy there is no reason to expect human remains at any particular point.
well, setting aside your assumptions about the time-scale (a topic i'll leave for later), yes. based on your assumptions that the entire geologic column is accounted for by the flood, your argument is correct: there is no reason to expect human (or any other particular species) remains at any particular point.
so... why do we see humans only at a particular point?
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(2)
Message 183 of 824 (718893)
02-09-2014 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 12:44 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
I don't know why, that's why I said "for whatever reason."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:44 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 184 of 824 (718895)
02-09-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
02-09-2014 12:48 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
Faith writes:
I don't know why, that's why I said "for whatever reason."
okay. that's fine. let me know if you come up with something.
in the meantime, i'm going to go with the model that has explanations consistent with the evidence and what we know of natural laws. i'll be happy to change my mind if a better model is proposed, though.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 185 of 824 (718901)
02-09-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
02-09-2014 12:02 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
Exactly. Even over a few thousand years you should expect quite a bit of change.
Uh, no. The evidence does not support that idea. At least not for humans and a wide variety of birds and mammals.
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was a famous French naturalist and "The Father of Paleontology". He was the one who worked out how to use fossils to reconstruct the original animal and its behavior. He also helped to pioneer biostratigraphy, using characteristic fossils to identify strata.
He was also strongly opposed to the ideas of evolution, which at that time was Lamarckian. I read his discussion of that in his "Trait sur la Thorie de la terre" ("Essay on the Theory of the Earth"). The French Army brought back tons of ancient Egyptian artifacts, including many mummies. These mummies were not only of humans, but also of many different kinds of animals; eg, cats, dogs, cattle, birds.
Cuvier examined many of these mummies which were thousands of years old. Did he find "quite a bit of change" as you imagine he must have? No, he did not. What he found instead was that all those mummies were virtually identical to their modern-day counterparts. No change in a few thousand years! From that he concluded that in the short amount of time that life had existed (he was apparently also a young-earther, but then the idea of deep geological time was just being developed), there would have been no time for life to have evolved.
Of course we (OK, not you) recognize the problems with Cuvier's reasoning. But the important part for this discussion is that his witnessed observation of the evidence shows conclusively that your imaginary hyper-accelerated evolution excuse (also a long-taught creationist excuse) is contrary to fact and just plain wrong.
Look to the evidence, to all the evidence. Follow the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 3:04 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 186 of 824 (718902)
02-09-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
02-09-2014 11:33 AM


Re: more geology
The only layer that is a problem is the cross bedded sandstone because the angle of repose supposedly means it had to have been aerially deposited.
Faith, you have your angle of repose kit. I have the FedEx receipt of delivery.
Do the experiment for yourself, already!

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 11:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 187 of 824 (718904)
02-09-2014 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 10:12 AM


Re: geology
arachnophilia writes:
Percy writes:
Right, I understand, but I think the phrase "rock formed by evaporation" will be interpreted by Faith as reinforcement of her belief that rock forms through evaporation.
well, sometimes it does. it's one of about a dozen depositional environments.
Yes, I understand. I just checked and I see that you weren't a participant in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread. Faith thinks that rocks like this form through evaporation:
So when you refer to "rock formed by evaporation" she's going to think, "Aha! I was right!" I'm just trying to avoid an avoidable misunderstanding.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 10:12 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 2:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 188 of 824 (718910)
02-09-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
02-09-2014 1:37 PM


Re: geology
Percy writes:
I just checked and I see that you weren't a participant in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread
faith noticed it too. i think it's a bit late to jump in now, and i haven't seen any particular topics there i felt like responding to. though perhaps this whole subtopic should be moved there? it'd be more on-topic.
Faith thinks that rocks like this form through evaporation:
So when you refer to "rock formed by evaporation" she's going to think, "Aha! I was right!" I'm just trying to avoid an avoidable misunderstanding.
granted, which is why i posted more geology, detailing the rock layers of that specific natural formation, and how each layer was deposited. the major point being that while there are layers that show signs of receding/drying/evaporating water, they are interspersed with marine layers, dry layers, volcanic layers, etc. there's about 8 marine transgression series shown there. far from being accounted for by single flood that put the entire area under water and then dried up, the rock strata show that the area has been under water and dried up at least a half dozen times.
Edited by arachnophilia, : redundant picture is redundant.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 1:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 2:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 189 of 824 (718914)
02-09-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by arachnophilia
02-09-2014 2:09 PM


Re: geology
I have been meaning to get back to the Flood thread but keep getting distracted and actually forget about it at times too. But it may yet happen.
For now: I defy anyone to find where I said ROCKS form by evaporation. The discussion originated with the idea that the strata would have been stable enough not to slump when the canyon was cut through it. My argument has been that they would have been HARD enough not to slump, because the weight of the strata would have compressed them sufficiently for that. I also claimed somewhere that simply drying the sediments would harden them, and that would be all I had in mind. People kept saying that it takes a long time to lithify and I didn't have an interest in arguing that point really, all I cared about was that they were hard enough not to slump when cut through. Then somebody came along and showed that in fact lithification, meaning hardening with chemical cementation can occur a lot faster than was being claimed, also that compaction itself is a major element in rock formation. Again, I DON'T CARE. My interest was only in their being hard enough to maintain their shape and stability when carved and cut, which I believe did get established..
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 2:09 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 2:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 5:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 190 of 824 (718915)
02-09-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
02-09-2014 2:38 PM


Re: geology
Faith writes:
For now: I defy anyone to find where I said ROCKS form by evaporation...I also claimed somewhere that simply drying the sediments would harden them,...
So you think that evaporation and drying are two different things? So when something dries, what do you think happens to the water?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 3:07 PM Percy has replied
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 5:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 824 (718916)
02-09-2014 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by dwise1
02-09-2014 1:17 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
As Arach said, offspring differ from parents and that is the basis for evolution right there. Certainly if any group of people or animals gets isolated for any period of time, their descendants will develop a characteristic appearance that differs from the main population they left. The reason there are many different varieties or breeds or races of people and animals is due to this ordinary fact of genetic transmission.
And such varieties are also found in the fossil record. Take the trilobites: there are different varieties in different strata, which are interpreted to be evolution up the supposed time scale, but all they really are is varieties that lived at the same time, which reflects what happens all the time with living species. There are something like three varieties or races or breeds of wildebeests that occupy different geographic areas. All that happened is that different traits occur in different genetic frequencies in the different groups because of their being isolated from one another and inbreeding within their own genetic pool. This is clearly what happened with the different varieties of animals found in the fossil record.
All this is of course MICROevolution, or the expected natural variation within a Species or Kind, which has been well known for millennia. You simply have lots of races of trilobites reflected there, no evolution upward, just standard microevolution through isolation.
NOT to expect change over a few thousand years within Species is what would be odd, Cuvier notwithstanding, because the various people groups and animal groups naturally disperse geographically over time and become isolated breeding pools unto themselves.
That would be where we should expect the greatest changes, but even the change from generation to generation due to sexual recombination ought to produce identifiable change over a few thousand years.
It wouldn't be on a scale that would make mummies differ from living human beings though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by dwise1, posted 02-09-2014 1:17 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 4:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 5:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 824 (718917)
02-09-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
02-09-2014 2:51 PM


Re: geology
So you think that evaporation and drying are two different things? So when something dries, what do you think happens to the water?
No, what I said was:
My argument has been that they would have been HARD enough not to slump, because the weight of the strata would have compressed them sufficiently for that. I also claimed somewhere that simply drying the sediments would harden them, and that would be all I had in mind.
I was contrastinc drying with compression, as having been discussed separately, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 2:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-09-2014 4:13 PM Faith has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 193 of 824 (718918)
02-09-2014 3:19 PM



  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 194 of 824 (718921)
02-09-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
02-09-2014 3:04 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
That would be where we should expect the greatest changes, but even the change from generation to generation due to sexual recombination ought to produce identifiable change over a few thousand years.
And since sedimentary rocks were caused by the flood, all the intermediate forms would be in unlithified sediment, correct? And not in the rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 4:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 824 (718922)
02-09-2014 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Adequate
02-09-2014 4:05 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
What?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 4:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-09-2014 4:55 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024