|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I have to remark that the very sharply defined differences between sediments that make up the geological column defy a long-term (millions of years) buildup explanation at least as much as a Flood explanation. what? how?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, let's see what she says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This is off topic here I believe, is it off topic? well, then stop bringing up offtopic garbage in an attempt to derail the thread, especially if you can't even explain your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Come on; there have been a ton of stupid flood threads on this board and no one has ever presented one reasonable pro-flood argument ever. It's just stupid pseudo-scientific garbage over and over. the question was which creationist canard faith would resort to. incredulity? last-thursdayism? evasion? hand-waving? arguments from ignorance? logical fallacies? looks like she picked "evasion." seem to be the standard one these days. they can make their points all over the place -- but ask them to explain what they mean, and it's off-topic. if they explain themselves, we might be able to point how their position is illogical, or that it's based on a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of the science it's related to, etc. keep it vague, and avoid being proven wrong. i guess that leaves us with only one choice: laugh at the ridiculous ad-hoc claims, and the foolish arrogance of someone pretending to know more about something than they evidently do. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Most sedimentary rock - almost all, I guess - had its pores full of water when it was laid down aren't many types of sedimentary rock formed in water to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
A worldwide flood would involve multiple currents at multiple levels going multiple directions, go fill your bathtub with water. pour something in it, milk, or sand, food coloring. anything really. now put your hand in it, and push the surface in one direction. put your hand deeper, and push the lower parts. what happens?
Millions of years of only one kind of sediment-plus-particular fossil contents maybe, followed by millions of years of only another completely different kind of sediment. this may be a bit of a suprise to you, but it's not "one kind of sediment" in a layer. sediments (plural) are combined, nicely mixed in each layer. the distinctions are not different kinds of sediments, but different mixtures of sediments. you get sharp demarcations when something suddenly changes -- for instance, there's one particular band that runs all the way around the world, and contains a high degree of iridium. it's called "the k/t boundary" and is evidence of cataclysm.
But my point was that whatever you can say about how ridiculous the flood scenario is, can be said back about the ridiculous idea that thick worldwide layers of homogeneous sediments with predictable fossil contents that don't spill over into the layers above and below, but just stay right there in their own peculiar sediment bed, sharply demarcated from the different sediments above and below, very sharply and neatly. try making a sharp demarcation in water. you deposit something in water, you get the same effect as if you deposit something from a vapor in the air -- a nice, even, homogenous deposition. as pointed out above, nearly ALL sedimentary rocks are formed in water. that's why the compositions are so homogenous in and of themselves. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Comparing bathtub water with a worldwide flood is beyond comment. yes, faith, it is. i can't believe i have to explain how water works. it's not MAGIC, i promise.
So it's one MIX, who cares? It's one THING separated out from another completely different kind of MIX-thing, and in any case the obvious difference from one to another and the sharp division between the layers makes no sense on a millions-of-years scenario. one set of sediments, constantly and slowly deposited under one set of conditions. another set of sediments constantly and slowly deposited under another set of conditions. makes a nice line -- all you need is a chift in climate or environment. the homogenity of layers, but dissimilarity to other layers shows that they had to have been formed independently of the other layers. you don't form two different kinds of sedimentary rock in the same water. two different suspension, one on top of the other, would not do this. the only way would incredibly rapid lithification, under high amounts of pressure. but that would utterly destroy the possibility for any fossils contained therein.
And as a matter of fact MOST of it IS one pecular kind of sediment. That's how they got their name, you know, the Coconino Sandstone and the Tapeats Limestone and all that. quote: coconino, admitted, seems to be only one sediment, pure quartz sand. but we're talking about water suspensions, not wind suspensions. there are sedimentary rocks that contain only kind of sediment, but most are multiple sediments. i am sorry to imply that they do not exist -- they do.
The iridium is evidence of a meteor hit some time during the flood,the iridium from which was carried along on the surface of a sediment-laden current or wave until the whole shebang finally settled down and dried out. ad hoc. the k/t layer demands world-wide circulation of particles. that would have to be a world-wide current that did not mix at all with any other flood water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What's an aquifer? An underground area of porous rock and spaces that contain water, rock that could have started out wet sediment that then hardened under the enormous pressure from above. you have three choices for formation of sedimentary rock in water:
in the first two, the rock forms dry by definition. in the third, well. don't worry about the third, because fortunately the entire geologic column is not chemically deposited.
However, again, the idea of the millions of years scenario for all those neat layers with their neat contents does not compute tech support!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Let's see both sides discuss the evidence. don't be silly percy. one side has evidence, the other side has ad-hoc speculation to try to explain away the evidence. that's what this debate is, and always has been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe you would forsake a belief in science (read: scientific method) no matter what the evidence? there's another major fault in this logic that nobody has pointed out yet. the evidence is part of the scientific method. you can't overturn the scientific method with evidence. you can overturn particular hypotheses, but that is also part of the scientific method. rather, it's the creationists who feel they have the high ground. they know the truth, and no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince them otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Patently this is bogus. It relies on a defintion of Christianity (which doesn't exist) and a definition of science (which doesn't exist) anti-semantics. that's a new one, iano. why are creationists suddenly afraid to define terms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I've got to add to this - it's a bit disingenious to an extent to make such a demand. welcome to the debate. one side has evidence, and contructs theories. the other side has a book, and creates ad-hoc explanations to try to explain the evidence. creationists don't have evidence. they don't even understand evidence to mean the same thing we do. it's a bit unreasonable to demand that they present something that doesn't exist. after all, there is no debate in the scientific community, where people actually have access to, and study the evidence. this isn't "which is right, based on the evidence." it's a battle of the points-of-view, and methodologies. abe:
Faith was banned from the science forums wasn't she? What's changed in her behaviour since then? looks like not a lot. just more frantic ad-hoc fantasies, and sometimes ruder behaviour. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The imporant issue is the relative extent to which either side can muster evidence for their position. no percy, that's the unreasonable expectation. creationists don't have evidence. they have ad-hoc fantasies, and explanations stemming from misunderstandings of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
All that makes your explanations "evidence," and mine not, however, is acceptance by the establishment, because most of the explanations offered by evos for, say, each individual stratum of the geo column, are sheer imaginative fantasy. we don't take a vote to decide what is and what is not evidence or fact. geology is a vast area of study based on rigorous scientific procedures and evidence, and experimentation. and you know nothing about it, so all can you do is sit back and claim that it's just our imaginations. when clearly, it is you who is just making stuff up as you need to.
Now, there ARE creationists who are scientists i'll believe that when i see some evidence of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we don't take a vote to decide what is and what is not evidence or fact. geology is a vast area of study based on rigorous scientific procedures and evidence, and experimentation. Another tedious recitation of the Science Uber Alles Credo and a saluting of the Science Flag. Ho hum. ok. so let's take stock for a second. should we take the word of scientists who study the evidence in the field, and devote their lives to learning the skills neccessary to analyze that evidence? or should we take your word, regarding how you think a three thousand year old book should be read, and what you think are valid explanations of the evidence, when you evidently have no understanding whatsoever of any geological processes?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024