|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Of course anybody who denies that the Bible is God's own revelation to us is going to have a problem with starting from the Flood, we'll leave the bible debates for another thread. i'm interested in discussing science here at the moment. this may surprise you, but i have no problem with starting with the flood. i misspoke a bit above when i said,
quote: science actually doesn't start with the evidence, though the conclusions must necessarily be drawn from the evidence (rather than drawing the evidence from the conclusions). science, in fact, generally starts with imaginative leaps of faith. crazy guesses about the way the world maybe works. the problem is not starting with the assumption of the flood; it's ending with your initial assumptions and selecting evidence based on confirmation bias (ignoring the vast plethora falsifying evidence). by all means: start with the assumption of flood. but then use it, and the knowledge of the physical world, to make a testable hypothesis. and when that hypothesis is wrong, modify your assumptions. that's the scientific method.
in that case the Biblical revelation IS evidence, the primary evidence, and all the rest of the evidence has to conform to it. well, no. it doesn't have to. the evidence never has to conform to your initial assumptions. otherwise, there would be no way to discern truth at all. we'd all run around simply repeating our initial assumptions. being able to prove things wrong is the cornerstone of being able to determine if things might be right.
Comparing THE worldwide Flood with any other flood is absurd. why? listen, saying that the geologic strata is good evidence for the flood and then saying that the flood wouldn't look like any other flood is just operating from a different idea of evidence than any rational person would use. i might as well say that mount everest is good evidence for a meteor strike the size of the moon, and oh by the way, we shouldn't expect this one to leave a crater because it wasn't like any other meteor impact. you'd think i was daft.
What you "would expect to see" based on such observations as you give is likely very far from what actually happened because you don't have the scale of the thing in mind. sure i do. what part about describing an entire mile of different depositional environments makes you think i don't have the scale of the thing in mind? if anything, i'm arguing for a much larger scale than you are.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: For now: I defy anyone to find where I said ROCKS form by evaporation. other than percy's input, i wasn't aware you had made such an argument.
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. you're aware fluvial erosion on particulates and fluvial erosion on rock are, in fact, different, right? a few of the strata in the region actually show signs of fluvial deposition and erosion within the layer during deposition, and fluvial erosion on the layer itself as part of the river channel. think of it like "perimortem" and "postmortem" when you're watching bones or CSI or whatever.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Percy writes: So when something dries, what do you think happens to the water? uh, percy, expulsion of connate fluids is generally a phase in lithification. water need not evaporate to be expelled from sedimentary rock as it "dries". this, in fact, still happens in deep marine deposition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Faith writes: 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, neither of those positions is accurate. the trilobite family tree looks something like this:
with higher in the fossil record on the left, and lower on the right. it's true that most varieties lived concurrently in the cambrian. it's also true that some varieties went extinct, as best as we can tell, before the end of the cambrian, and others in the devonian, and the last by the end of the permian. there was wild diversification in the cambrian, but you still can use trilobites like a "cheat sheet" to take a stab at which rock layer you're looking at. at least until the specific examples are shown to exist higher than previously though. it's not an absolute dating method by anyways.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
roxrkool writes: Besides, I'm specifically referring to animals and humans that lived 4300 years ago. Those will certainly stick out like a sore thumb at the base of all these thousands of feet of stratigraphic section since most Creos place the flood at the top of the Precambrian. and i'm saying that it's the "humans" and "human civilizations" angle that you should work, because i can find plenty of animals that existed in practically identical forms both 4300 years ago, and 43 million years ago. we need to find, say, the city that cain's descendants built at the bottom of the precambrian rock. but i'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
the effects a river has on loose sediment and the effects a river has on rock are not the same.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: There were no post-Flood STRATA. Dr. A. is talking about non lithified strata. you know, the stuff we dig the cities of the bible out of.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: I don't know why what was really a very simple concept is becoming such a big deal. yes, i frankly don't understand it either.
The context was whether the walls of the canyon would slump, I figure they wouldn't because water would have been pressed out of them. compression is indeed the most common method that causes connate fluids to be expelled in sedimentary lithification. but there are a number of problems beyond the "not slumping" issue. one is that there are two very large angular unconformities in the area, that cut through the grand canyon. these require that the layers below were exposed, turned on an angle, weathered away, and then had more strata piled on top. that's basically impossible to do while the sediment (note: one of those unconformities is partly volcanic) is wet, or you get soft-structure deformation. angular pressure on soft (drying) sediment distorts it. angular pressure on hard rocks sometimes distort them, too, though that distortion looks different.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Seems obvious enough, but what's your point and why are you talking about a river? there's a river in the grand canyon. and if you're arguing that it was cut by rushing water, that's a river.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: As I understand it, those strata are not the same thing as the geologic column, not different sediments for one thing. different sediments, sure. geologic column? well, they are, but it's kind of like arguing whether or not the fire on the candles is part of the birthday cake. it's all the stuff below that really matters. what Dr. A. is saying is that transitional forms would then not be part of the geologic column, and would exist all on top of it, and everything below would necessarily be a pre-noachide-evolutionary-explosion "kind". Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: Are you talking about the Supergroup / The Great Unconformity or some other angular unconformity as well? Most creationists accept that those rocks were already there before the Flood so that there is no issue about their being wet at all. wait. so the flood doesn't explain all the strata?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Faith writes: I say they created ALL the strata, most creationists don't. But on my scenario there would have been no exposure of the angular unconformity and no weathering. then how do you explain the angular unconformity and the signs of weathering between some strata (particularly at the unconformity)?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024