Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(4)
Message 3 of 61 (723199)
03-27-2014 3:38 PM


On a Piece of Chalk
I can't help but think of Huxley's essay, "On a Piece of Chalk" from 1868. In it, he uses a rock that everyone is familiar with to drive home some very important points. He discusses just how massive these chalk layers are, and then points out how they were built from the tiniest of creatures. Even in 1868 it was obvious to everyone that these deposits required massive amounts of time, and this was well before radiometric dating made it on to the scene.
Ken Ham is known for simplifying geology to the point of stupidity. He will say that floods produce mud, and what do we see in the geology record? MUD!!!!
As Huxley, Nye, and now RAZD point out so very well, it isn't mud. It is life. That is what creationists can not explain, how you can get a thousand feet of the worlds tiniest sea creatures stacked on top of each other instead of the mud we would expect from a flood.
"No less certain it is that the time during which the countries we now call south-east England, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, were more or less completely covered by a deep sea, was of considerable duration. We have already seen that the chalk is, in places, more than a thousand feet thick. I think you will agree with me, that it must have taken some time for the skeletons of animalcules of a hundredth of an inch in diameter to heap up such a mass as that. I have said that throughout the thickness of the chalk the remains of other animals are scattered. These remains are often in the most exquisite state of preservation. The valves of the shell-fishes are commonly adherent; the long spines of some of the sea-urchins, which would be detached by the smallest jar, often remain in their places. In a word, it is certain that these animals have lived and died [21] when the place which they now occupy was the surface of as much of the chalk as had then been deposited; and that each has been covered up by the layer of Globigerina mud, upon which the creatures imbedded a little higher up have, in like manner, lived and died."--Thomas Huxley, "On a Piece of Chalk"
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : added Huxley quote

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2014 5:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 5 of 61 (723211)
03-27-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
03-27-2014 5:16 PM


Re: On a Piece of Chalk or a hill in Italy
The world is old, very old, and belief in a world wide flood is delusional.
Getting back to Ham v. Nye, I think it would have been realy cool if Nye had taken a piece of chalk and put it under a microscope for all to see. Then show them pictures of the cliffs at Dover.
If anyone remains unconvinced at that point, take away their membership cards in the human race.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2014 5:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 03-28-2014 7:55 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 13 of 61 (723293)
03-28-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
03-28-2014 11:57 AM


I understand that it is rude and elitist to say it, but for the most part, the Creationists here seem to be composed of folks whose last science course was a painful, junior high school memory with the occasional poster who has taken some kind of physics/biology for poets course under duress. Maybe there used to be lots of exceptions to that who posted here, but apparently those guys are long gone.
That's about what I sense as well. They have been told that experts have looked at the science, and that YEC is supported by it. That's about all they need to know. I think deep down they know better than to go digging into the supposed YEC science. Think of it as plausible deniability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2014 11:57 AM NoNukes has seen this message but 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