Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 91 of 409 (679718)
11-15-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
11-14-2012 11:46 PM


Re: One Day / Ananias and Sapphira
Hi Faith,
The point was that the "I've got mine and I'm keeping it" principles of modern American conservatism stand in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus concerning sharing and community.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 11:46 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 11-17-2012 1:27 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 92 of 409 (679739)
11-15-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate
11-15-2012 6:29 AM


Re: Dinosaurs and Nautiloids
No you will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layer because they are different breeds or groups that were not with each other when the Flood hit and got buried separately.
You imagine the "formation" of different rocks instead of the mere carrying of the separated sediments on separated currents of water in a Flood to their final deposition, which explains their appearance far better than all the scenario building nonsense of modern geology.
The nautiloids are found just about entirely without any other form of life accompanying them in that layer that extends for thousands of square miles. ALL other forms of sea life that preceded them should have been represented in that layer along with them if the notion of successive periods makes any sense at all. The fact that layers often contain only one type of creature such as the nautiloids is evidence against the explanation of the fossil record in terms of evolution.
LATER EDIT: Since no one has responded to this post I'll add some further information I was just checking on. There ARE many other kinds of creatures in that layer, but there is a great preponderance of nautiloids there, about one per square meter over an area of hundreds of square miles, or something like ten billion in the entire area. This is great evidence for a sudden catastrophic killing and burying of the creatures, and not good evidence at all for the evolution interpretation. This identification was made by Steve Austin over years of studying that layer in the Grand Canyon, which you can find out more about here:
http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids
RSR: Remember the Nautiloids! | KGOV.com
If you watch the video of Steve Austin at the second link talking about the nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon area, a layer of the redwall limestone, at about 29.00 on the counter he identifies that layer as Mississippian which is above the Cambrian. Somebody said the nautiloids are Precambrian-Cambrian. Nope, Mississipppian redwall limestone: http://dept.astro.lsa.umich.edu/~cowley/grand33.jpg
Edited by Faith, : To add information about the nautiloids
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-15-2012 6:29 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-15-2012 10:45 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 93 of 409 (679741)
11-15-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
11-15-2012 5:35 AM


Re: bottleneck
So, according to you, removing 99.99% of the human population does not show up as a genetic bottleneck because you think there was massively more heterozygosity in the 8 people on the ark then in the 7 billion people that currently exist.
No, I believe the junk DNA itself is the evidence of that huge bottleneck, and ALSO that you wouldn't see the extreme genetic depletion we see today from a genetic bottleneck because the remainder of the genome at that time would have had much more genetic variability although a great deal less than before the Flood.
So because of your current preconceptions you wouldn't recognize the bottleneck.
ABE: DIDN'T GET THIS SAID RIGHT. Correction.
The junk DNA should not have been present to the great extent it is today in the people or the animals on the ark, but because of the bottleneck they were then undergoing as inbreeding went on generation after generation after the Flood the bottleneck would have shown up as the increasing death of genes because of the absence of so many that had been there before the Flood. The greater heterozygosity would have been in the formerly functioning DNA that became junk DNA as well as in the remainder of the genome, but it would be reduced over the generations after the Flood as well because of so many missing alleles for genes that remained on top of a total absense of some genes through no alleles whatever for them remaining in the gene pool. Believe it or not I do understand how this would have worked but it's hard to get it into words.
Sorry you don't have DNA from people who lived 4300 years ago, you only think you do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 11-15-2012 5:35 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 1:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 106 by Panda, posted 11-16-2012 6:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 94 of 409 (679742)
11-15-2012 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:56 PM


Re: bottleneck
Sorry you don't have DNA from people who lived 4300 years ago, you only think you do.
In my archaeological work I recovered mtDNA from a skeleton 5,300 years old.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 2:11 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 95 of 409 (679745)
11-15-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coyote
11-15-2012 1:58 PM


Re: bottleneck
So please explain how you arrived at that date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 1:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 2:43 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 96 of 409 (679746)
11-15-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coyote
11-15-2012 12:54 AM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
In spite of what creationists and other laymen might imagine, theory is the highest level of confidence.
This makes sense for true sciences where you can replicate experiments and that sort of thing but evolution belongs to the past and you can't replicate anything. Your theory in this case remains a theory in the sense I meant it for that reason. It is all pure conjecture, pure imagination.
You claim there is evidence for it, I claim the evidence supports creationism as well or better than evolution.
You are talking apples and oranges. Evolution, as I'm sure you have been told repeatedly, is change in the genome over time. Creationism is how that genome came to be.
I've USED the fact that the genome changes over time in my own arguments. Change in gene frequency explains how breeds or varieites are developed. Change in gene frequency also demonstrates how you can't get evolution BEYOND breeds and varieties so that evolution comes to a halt eventually for lack of genetic possibilities. I've argued this many times before here and at my blogs.
They are entirely different subjects!
No, creationism includes an understanding of for instance how varieties and breeds (microevolution) are formed and continue to form, and how the strata were laid down by the Flood such that all the fossils therein are evidence not of evolution but of life before the Flood. It is not just about origins, it has become a whole explanatory system unto itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 12:54 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 409 (679747)
11-15-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
11-15-2012 2:11 PM


Re: bottleneck
So please explain how you arrived at that date.
In keeping with the spirit of the Road Trip show, I'll provide a brief explanation. Much farther would be off-topic.
It was arrived at through radiocarbon dating, along with artifact styles, and the midden constituents and depositional history of the site in which it was found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 2:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2012 5:33 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 9:37 PM Coyote has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 98 of 409 (679776)
11-15-2012 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
11-15-2012 2:43 PM


carbon dating verification
Hi Coyote,
It was arrived at through radiocarbon dating, along with artifact styles, and the midden constituents and depositional history of the site in which it was found.
I would add that this is well within the range where the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating has been validated by dendrochronology -- the counting of annual tree rings -- which has itself been validated to be within 0.5% accuracy, as detailed in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 - see Message 4.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : wording
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 2:43 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 99 of 409 (679806)
11-15-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Coyote
11-15-2012 2:43 PM


Re: age of skeleton
It was arrived at through radiocarbon dating, along with artifact styles, and the midden constituents and depositional history of the site in which it was found.
Just please confirm that you did actually subject this particular find to carbon dating, send it to a lab or whatever you do for that purpose, and that you got back absolutely unambiguous results.
Also please indicate what weight you put on the various methods of dating. How important is artifact style compared to "depositional history" and so on. And wasn't "artifact style" originally dated by the other things on your list anyway?
The "depositional history of the site in which it was found" would of course meet with nothing but eye rolls from me.
I know there is every kind of weird creationist notion about when the Flood supposedly occurred, many of them based on a compromise with what they think science knows, and I'm probably the only one here, or maybe that ever was here, who believes the ENTIRE geological column was formed in the Flood in the time period traditionally understood to be identified in the Bible. So I understand if "creationism" comes across as just anybody's wild guess, which it pretty much is for some reason among those who post here. Including my own guesses of course. I can't see how any, some, many or most of the strata could have been formed by the Flood and the rest formed by some other means. They are all identical as to their basic horizontality, demarcation from layers above and below, etc etc etc. They show NO disturbances until recent time when tectonic forces distorted them, cut canyons into them or whatnot, they just lie there as a full stack. What is called "erosion" between the slabs such as in the GC, is a little roughing up, minuscule compared to what real erosion does on the surface of this earth, easily accounted for by runoff of water between the layers as the stack dried out after the Flood. Etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, I DO respect you scientists a great deal -- when you stick to the work of science, not when you are conjuring up ages of time you can't possibly really know anything about and calling it fact and jeering us Biblical creationists for not accepting it because we have a better testimony to time.
Seems to me that as long as certain kinds of science, such as archaeology and paleontology, work as oh, say, entomologists do, mostly by scrupulously identifying and cataloging pure phenomena/fact including location, conditions or whatever, rather than treating things like dating as fact that really depend on a bunch of accumulated speculations and NOT actual fact, then they are doing true science that I'm not going to dispute. Unless there is reason to suspect a hoax, and hoaxes are not unknown in science to say the least.
Yes, I know the dating methods SEEM pretty open and shut to you. But even with RAZD's dendrochronology and his whole list of supposed proofs, which I've seen him post many times here, I reject it as science. Sorry. Because you cannot know the past as you think you can and I do happen to have a trustworthy source of historical knowledge that I'm not going to yield over to the mere cogitations of mere human beings, however nice, smart and honest you might be.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 2:43 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Genomicus, posted 11-15-2012 9:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 11:45 PM Faith has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 100 of 409 (679807)
11-15-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
11-15-2012 9:37 PM


Re: age of skeleton
I reject it as science.
For scientific reasons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 10:39 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2012 11:28 AM Genomicus has not replied

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


Message 101 of 409 (679818)
11-15-2012 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Genomicus
11-15-2012 9:42 PM


Re: age of skeleton / dating methods
I reject it as science.
For scientific reasons?
I think so, yes. First of course I think I have a better source of dating information, which is scientific information in itself. But also I've read the history of how the age of the earth just got older and older based entirely on speculative subjective musings, starting with Hutton and popularlized by Lyell, way before radiometric dating came along. I did my own debunking of Hutton's revolutionary "discovery" of huge ages of time in his ponderings of Siccar Point, on my blog (listed in my profile). So yes, I believe my rejection is scientific.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Genomicus, posted 11-15-2012 9:42 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 102 of 409 (679819)
11-15-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
No you will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layer because they are different breeds or groups that were not with each other when the Flood hit and got buried separately.
They got buried one on top of the other even though they were involved in the same cataclysmic flood? If the flood theory were true, you should see dinosaurs mixed with mammals mixed with sea creatures, etc, all in one big layer not seperated out into hundreds of individual layers inside different types of rock.
You imagine the "formation" of different rocks instead of the mere carrying of the separated sediments on separated currents of water in a Flood to their final deposition, which explains their appearance far better than all the scenario building nonsense of modern geology.
Yeah because modern geologists are a bunch of retards. Why shouldn't we trust super-religious zealots like yourself with no education in geology over PhDs with decades in geology field work. Sheesh.
That is not how limestone, sandstone, mudstone, etc is formed. Limestone formation is a slow long process of the deposit of microscopic marine life over long periods of time. These microscopic creatures create calcium carbonate from the carbon dioxide that is disolved in the water. Lithification in the quantity of the Grand Canyon sediment layers cannot be done in 40 days .
The nautiloids are found just about entirely without any other form of life accompanying them in that layer that extends for thousands of square miles.
Nautiloids are found with fossils of other sea creatures of that geological age. Please provide source.
The fact that layers often contain only one type of creature such as the nautiloids is evidence against the explanation of the fossil record in terms of evolution.
They do not just contain one creature. Provide evidence.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 11:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

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


Message 103 of 409 (679823)
11-15-2012 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate
11-15-2012 10:45 PM


Re: Dinosaurs and Nautiloids
No you will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layer because they are different breeds or groups that were not with each other when the Flood hit and got buried separately.
They got buried one on top of the other even though they were involved in the same cataclysmic flood? If the flood theory were true, you should see dinosaurs mixed with mammals mixed with sea creatures, etc, all in one big layer not seperated out into hundreds of individual layers inside different types of rock.
Not in THIS kind of Flood which was an expansion of the oceans to cover every bit of land. The oceans are crisscrossed with currents at different depths, and different temperatures, that do carry things along within them. Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow. Of course we don't kow how for sure, it's all speculation, just as your stuff is speculation. Wave action also could have deposited layers over a huge breadth of land.
But the layering makes far LESS sense on the evolutionist interpretation. Why should eras of time be demarcated by any such geological phenomena? Why shouldn't there be a continuous piling up of mixed sediments over those supposed billions of years? In fact why should there be ANY piling up of sediments whatever? Such phenomena occur in the present for particular reasons in limited locations. The idea that the entire earth would be layered makes NO sense except on the basis of the Flood catastrophe which stirred up everything, dissolved everything and redeposited it in layers. Well, rivers sort and deposite sediments in layers too. This is the sort of thing that water does. The scale of the Flood was beyond anything we can imagine but we CAN say that WATER ACTS THAT WAY. There is no reason to think that the mere passage of time should create layers on the earth but the earth is covered with such layers. And again, when you LOOK at the layers in their most undisturbed condition in the Grand Canyon, SO undisturbed for billions of years according to old earth/evolution theory, and THEN subjected to some pretty violent disturbances such as tectonic lifting and twistings (elsewhere, not in the GC) and the cutting of the canyon, how can you even THINK long ages?
You imagine the "formation" of different rocks instead of the mere carrying of the separated sediments on separated currents of water in a Flood to their final deposition, which explains their appearance far better than all the scenario building nonsense of modern geology.
Yeah because modern geologists are a bunch of retards.
No, they are merely in thrall to the accumulated "knowledge" of their discipline. The work they do is done under that umbrella. They take it for granted, they have no reason to question it as far as they know. That's normal science. It doesn't make anyone stupid, but it would be nice if creationists could get our act together well enough to make some of you have to rethink the foundations you are taking for granted.
Why shouldn't we trust super-religious zealots like yourself with no education in geology over PhDs with decades in geology field work. Sheesh.
I'm not asking for "trust," just a consideration of the evidence as I see it which I hope I argue with some intelligence.
That is not how limestone, sandstone, mudstone, etc is formed. Limestone formation is a slow long process of the deposit of microscopic marine life over long periods of time.
Well, presumably AFTER they've been formed they could be MOVED and stacked in a layer, couldn't they? All in the form of loose sediments perhaps broken up by the Flood waters before being moved.
These microscopic creatures create calcium carbonate from the carbon dioxide that is disolved in the water. Lithification in the quantity of the Grand Canyon sediment layers cannot be done in 40 days .
The lithification would have occurred over a much longer period than the period of the Flood itself, which merely did the work of deposition into layers. The weight of the stack must have done quite a bit of the hardening, at least of the lower layers, and then after the Flood receded it must have taken a fair amount of time for it to dry out and harden. Years? A century?
The nautiloids are found just about entirely without any other form of life accompanying them in that layer that extends for thousands of square miles.
Nautiloids are found with fossils of other sea creatures of that geological age. Please provide source.
The fact that layers often contain only one type of creature such as the nautiloids is evidence against the explanation of the fossil record in terms of evolution.
They do not just contain one creature. Provide evidence.
Sorry, I just figured the other creatures were sparsely represented and don't occur in the numbers needed to be evidence for the volutionist scenario, which I believe is borne out by the evidence, and I absolutized it, which I shouldn't have. But I did look up evidence and apparently I was writing my edit to that post while you were answering the earlier version.
What I added was links to Steve Austin's work on the nautiloid layer in the GC and the correction that there ARE other creatures in the layer with the nautiloids, but that nevertheless the nautiloids are found there in prodigious numbers, one to a square meter, or he estimates something like 10 billion over the hundreds of square miles he sampled. Such a dense preponderance of one creature in one layer is good evidence for rapid catastrophic deposition and killing, and not good evidence for the long-ages evolutionist interpretation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-15-2012 10:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2012 2:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 107 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 11-16-2012 10:25 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-17-2012 3:49 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 104 of 409 (679826)
11-15-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
11-15-2012 9:37 PM


Re: age of skeleton
Just please confirm that you did actually subject this particular find to carbon dating, send it to a lab or whatever you do for that purpose, and that you got back absolutely unambiguous results.
Of course we sent the sample of human bone to a laboratory--the most experienced one in the country. In addition to this radiocarbon date, we had 30 others to work with. And any time we got results we did not understand, we sent additional samples until we did understand what was going on.
Also please indicate what weight you put on the various methods of dating. How important is artifact style compared to "depositional history" and so on. And wasn't "artifact style" originally dated by the other things on your list anyway?
The different methods of dating must all agree or something's wrong. For example, one thing we look for is superposition, with older materials on the bottom and younger ones toward the top. Of course, burials are almost always intrusive, so we take that into consideration. We use the various methods I mentioned.
Another example: in one area of this site we had a date come back a bit over 7,000 years old. That was 1,500 years older than anything else we had. We would not accept that date until we had some confirmation, so we submitted a series of additional radiocarbon samples from that same area. Eventually we got three additional dates in close agreement with that old date. With that additional evidence we could accept those dates as representing an older component to the site.
The "depositional history of the site in which it was found" would of course meet with nothing but eye rolls from me.
Sorry to hear that. Proper study of soils and their contents can tell you a great deal.
I know there is every kind of weird creationist notion about when the Flood supposedly occurred, many of them based on a compromise with what they think science knows, and I'm probably the only one here, or maybe that ever was here, who believes the ENTIRE geological column was formed in the Flood in the time period traditionally understood to be identified in the Bible. So I understand if "creationism" comes across as just anybody's wild guess, which it pretty much is for some reason among those who post here.
Creationists have claimed the flood occurred anywhere between about 4,000 years ago and 250 million years ago and beyond. It is like they are terrified to pick out one specific time because then that time would be subject to examination for the telltale signs of a flood. And in fact, all of the time periods suggested for the flood have been examined and there is no evidence of a global flood at any of those times.
Including my own guesses of course. I can't see how any, some, many or most of the strata could have been formed by the Flood and the rest formed by some other means. They are all identical as to their basic horizontality, demarcation from layers above and below, etc etc etc. They show NO disturbances until recent time when tectonic forces distorted them, cut canyons into them or whatnot, they just lie there as a full stack. What is called "erosion" between the slabs such as in the GC, is a little roughing up, minuscule compared to what real erosion does on the surface of this earth, easily accounted for by runoff of water between the layers as the stack dried out after the Flood. Etc. etc. etc.
Check with the geologists and sedimentologists on this one.
Sorry, I DO respect you scientists a great deal -- when you stick to the work of science, not when you are conjuring up ages of time you can't possibly really know anything about and calling it fact and jeering us Biblical creationists for not accepting it because we have a better testimony to time.
No, you do not respect scientists, nor the scientific method, at all. You feel free to pick and choose what you accept and to denigrate those scientists who come up with answers contrary to your beliefs, beliefs, incidentally, not based on scientific evidence at all. Sorry, you don't get to do that. If you accept the scientific method, you have to accept the results whether you like them or not. And scientists use the same basic methods, with some adjustments for the nature of their particular data, across all fields.
Seems to me that as long as certain kinds of science, such as archaeology and paleontology, work as oh, say, entomologists do, mostly by scrupulously identifying and cataloging pure phenomena/fact including location, conditions or whatever, rather than treating things like dating as fact that really depend on a bunch of accumulated speculations and NOT actual fact, then they are doing true science that I'm not going to dispute. Unless there is reason to suspect a hoax, and hoaxes are not unknown in science to say the least.
I would suggest that there are far more hoaxes, distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies peddled by creationists than scientists. I have messaged some of the creationist sites with simple errors that they have made reading the scientific literature, and so far they have all refused to correct those errors. They BELIEVE and that has clouded their judgment completely. I think the same applies to you.
A part of this is the phony dichotomy creationists try to establish between evolutionary sciences and "real" science. That's nonsense invented to try to prop up beliefs that have been disproved by the scientific method.
There is overwhelming evidence that our dating methods are at least pretty good, within, say 10%. Tree rings agree pretty closely with corals, and both agree with glacial varves, and so on. Bristlecone pines from southern California agree closely with European oaks. Newer radiometric dating using different methods and materials are also providing remarkable similar results. RAZD has several threads exploring these correlations.
You can't just say you don't accept them and retain any credibility. You have to present evidence why they don't work, and to explain away the multiple correlations. So far no creationist has been able to do that. Even the RATE boys were forced to backtrack on a lot of their initial ideas in the face of scientific evidence that they themselves produced--and this is after spending over a million dollars of creationist money.
Yes, I know the dating methods SEEM pretty open and shut to you. But even with RAZD's dendrochronology and his whole list of supposed proofs, which I've seen him post many times here, I reject it as science. Sorry. Because you cannot know the past as you think you can and I do happen to have a trustworthy source of historical knowledge that I'm not going to yield over to the mere cogitations of mere human beings, however nice, smart and honest you might be.
You are just hand-waving away solid scientific information based on your belief in ancient myths. Now, you can believe what you want, but what I don't understand is how you can keep trying to fool yourself--apparently quite successfully--in the face of the massive amounts of evidence that we present to the contrary.
Go through RAZD's thread and there is a lot more than dendrochronology. There are a lot of different methods of dating, and they are all in pretty close agreement--certainly close enough that there is no room for a young earth or for a recent global flood.
So here we are recreating the Creationism Road Trip. Folks who are familiar with the various fields are presenting evidence, which creationists just hand-wave away. Same as always.
(See signature.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 1:12 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 1:47 AM Coyote has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 105 of 409 (679845)
11-16-2012 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
11-15-2012 11:17 PM


Re: Dinosaurs and Nautiloids
quote:
Not in THIS kind of Flood which was an expansion of the oceans to cover every bit of land. The oceans are crisscrossed with currents at different depths, and different temperatures, that do carry things along within them. Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow. Of course we don't kow how for sure, it's all speculation, just as your stuff is speculation. Wave action also could have deposited layers over a huge breadth of land.
Actually it looks like a desperate attempt to dismiss the evidence without thinking. THere's no real explanation or even consideration of the problems here.
quote:
But the layering makes far LESS sense on the evolutionist interpretation.
By which you mean that the science of geology is complete nonsense. Evolution has VERY little input to geology. If geologists had found your ideas viable evolution would have failed. BUt they didn't and don't.
quote:
Why should eras of time be demarcated by any such geological phenomena?
For a start, the eras were determined by geology - or rather the geology that the scientists of the time knew. So the whole question is the wrong way around. Not that there are precise worldwide markers by any means.
quote:
Why shouldn't there be a continuous piling up of mixed sediments over those supposed billions of years?
Because conditions change over time. There is uplift and subsidence. Basins fill. Volcanic eruptions occur.
quote:
Such phenomena occur in the present for particular reasons in limited locations. The idea that the entire earth would be layered makes NO sense except on the basis of the Flood catastrophe which stirred up everything, dissolved everything and redeposited it in layers.
I guess you haven't been following the creationist claim that the geological column isn't real. There are a few areas on Earth that have seen deposition in every geological era, but they are unusual. THere are widespread layers, but none worldwide.
Even your solution claim is silly, because most rocks aren't that soluble - are you seriously suggesting that the Flood dissolved large quantities of silica? (glass is a form of silica, how soluble is that ?) Calcium carbonate is only weakly soluble (sea shells are made of calcium carbonate which would be pretty silly if it was liable to dissolve easily - and of course fossil shells are very common - how could that be if the Flood dissolved them ?) and of course we ought to see a layering based on solubility, with the less common deposits of highly soluble materials like salt at the very end. And then of course we can find solidified lava that erupted and cooled on the surface, and not underwater. How can the Flood account for that ?
So no, conventional geology makes a lot more sense than your ideas which can't cope with something as simple as a fossil shell.
quote:
Well, rivers sort and deposite sediments in layers too. This is the sort of thing that water does. The scale of the Flood was beyond anything we can imagine but we CAN say that WATER ACTS THAT WAY.
Which is why a lot of deposits are attributed to water action of various sorts. But obviously, even if water did dissolve a sea shell precipitating the calcium carbonate out of water would never reform the shell, water DOESN'T behave in THAT way. But there are also deposits which are not attributed to water action and you need to explain those, too.
quote:
There is no reason to think that the mere passage of time should create layers on the earth but the earth is covered with such layers.
Nobody claims that the mere passage of time created the layers - it is the events which happened during that passage of time. In fact the same events as you appealed to as showing what water does, and admitted to happening in the present time are among those causes. And it would be absurd of you to deny that such things could happen in the distant past.
quote:
And again, when you LOOK at the layers in their most undisturbed condition in the Grand Canyon, SO undisturbed for billions of years according to old earth/evolution theory, and THEN subjected to some pretty violent disturbances such as tectonic lifting and twistings (elsewhere, not in the GC) and the cutting of the canyon, how can you even THINK long ages?
This simply seems bizarre to me. How can you look at proof of long ages and reject it with such certainty ?
quote:
No, they are merely in thrall to the accumulated "knowledge" of their discipline. The work they do is done under that umbrella. They take it for granted, they have no reason to question it as far as they know. That's normal science. It doesn't make anyone stupid, but it would be nice if creationists could get our act together well enough to make some of you have to rethink the foundations you are taking for granted.
Of course, if the discipline were as absurd as you say then this situation would be impossible. The fact is that geologists know a whole lot more than you - you don't even understand basic facts like the solubility of the rocks or the extent of geological layering. And that I think is the problem - the geologists know what they are talking about, while you insist that knowledge is irrelevant - everyone should just jump to the conclusions you like. And you have no compunction in attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you, without caring if your attacks are really true enough (sufficient in court for a finding of malice).
quote:
I'm not asking for "trust," just a consideration of the evidence as I see it which I hope I argue with some intelligence.
Seems to me that you're demanding a whole lot more than trust. And considering the evidence as you see it, doesn't preclude a consideration of the evidence as it actually is - even evidence that you would rather we ignored.
quote:
Well, presumably AFTER they've been formed they could be MOVED and stacked in a layer, couldn't they? All in the form of loose sediments perhaps broken up by the Flood waters before being moved.
I suppose that you could claim that your dissolution and precipitation left no actual evidence at all, but what would the point of that be ?
How would you distinguish that from the original material being eroded and moved around ?
quote:
The lithification would have occurred over a much longer period than the period of the Flood itself, which merely did the work of deposition into layers. The weight of the stack must have done quite a bit of the hardening, at least of the lower layers, and then after the Flood receded it must have taken a fair amount of time for it to dry out and harden. Years? A century?
According to what I've read, much longer than that. Too long for you.
quote:
Sorry, I just figured the other creatures were sparsely represented and don't occur in the numbers needed to be evidence for the volutionist scenario, which I believe is borne out by the evidence, and I absolutized it, which I shouldn't have. But I did look up evidence and apparently I was writing my edit to that post while you were answering the earlier version.
I do hope that you realise that your beliefs about the evidence are not evidence in themselves. I can say from personal experience that while ammonites and belemnites are very common in some locales other fossils are also found there in some numbers (e.g. gryphaea) - and other areas nearby, from the same era can produce quite different fossils (crinoids, oyster beds, sea urchins and numerous small shells, for instance) in large quantities. And that is just my personal experience from amateur fossil collecting near my childhood home. Don't forget that different creatures live in different habitats, and that vertebrate fossils are only very rarely found by casual collectors (although certainly they are found in areas where ammonites are common).
quote:
What I added was links to Steve Austin's work on the nautiloid layer in the GC and the correction that there ARE other creatures in the layer with the nautiloids, but that nevertheless the nautiloids are found there in prodigious numbers, one to a square meter, or he estimates something like 10 billion over the hundreds of square miles he sampled. Such a dense preponderance of one creature in one layer is good evidence for rapid catastrophic deposition and killing, and not good evidence for the long-ages evolutionist interpretation.
I would disagree, in fact your argument makes no sense to me. Surely the numbers are BETTER explained by a long period of time - a catastrophic death can only catch a single generation, while over time many generations can live and die. Surely a catastrophic deposition would catch pretty much everything that lived there. So really I can't see how your evidence comes close to supporting your claim.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 11:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024