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:   Origin of the Flood Layers
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 151 of 409 (752657)
03-11-2015 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
03-11-2015 1:36 PM


There's a pattern there Faith
Faith writes:
I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.
I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.
There is a pattern there Faith and it is not just about science, facts or reality.
You don't care that terms actually have meaning or that what is seen is actually what is seen or what Calvin actually says or what is actually written in the Bible stories and that is why you continually post stuff that is just plain wrong.
You claim to see no reason any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface yet never provide a model, method, process or mechanism that could explain what is seen that does not require those artifacts to have once been on the surface.
This has been true so far of every single example of what really exists whether we are talking about the Bible or science or what Calvin actually wrote.
All anyone has ever asked of you is that when you make assertions that you actually try to back up those assertions with evidence and the model, process, method or mechanism that explains the evidence.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 1:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 152 of 409 (752658)
03-11-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
03-11-2015 1:36 PM


I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.
But you have no support for an alternative, right?
So, how else would a river valley form at depth within the geological record?
I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done. If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.
That isn't the point. The point is that if you come here and make statements it is expected that you will support your statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 1:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 3:12 PM edge has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 153 of 409 (752659)
03-11-2015 2:55 PM


Closing This Down
Apologies for taking so long to catch up with this thread, but discussion on this topic should return to the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread where it began. I'll be actively moderating it now. Responding to some of the concerns:
  • New threads can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics for topics that don't fit in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread, but they shouldn't be proposed here in the Coffee House forum. This forum is for topics having nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.
  • Complaints about participants won't be tolerated. Someone's arguments can only be shown wrong with evidence, not by complaining about what horrible people they are.
  • Bald declarations, from either side, also won't be tolerated.
  • Anyone can respond to any message (this shouldn't have to be said). (AbE)
  • Talmudic claims that I'm not enforcing the guidelines (e.g., "He said that water freezes at 32 degrees at STC, but you didn't make him prove it") won't be tolerated either.
  • Concerns about discussion should be reported to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread, not in-thread.
Edited by Admin, : AbE.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 409 (752660)
03-12-2015 7:03 AM


I'm Expecting a Thread Proposal
This thread should have gone through the normal thread proposal process over at Proposed New Topics. That it didn't, that it was opened here in Coffee House, is why I closed it down. I thought that I might see a new thread proposal by now, but I haven't, so I'm going to give this thread the title "Origin of the Flood Layers" and move it over to the Geology and the Great Flood forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 155 of 409 (752661)
03-12-2015 7:09 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the The Bully Swarm Thread, off the Earth Science Curriculum thread forum in the Coffee House forum.

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 156 of 409 (752663)
03-12-2015 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
03-11-2015 1:36 PM


I don't care that what I'm doing is not Science as you all so puristically insist it be done.
I wasn't asking you to be puristically scientific, just to do a quick google search and make a visual comparison.
I'm not interested in getting the terms right and finding out exactly what an underground river is. The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.
It's not about the terminology, it's about why we think these "buried canyons" were at one time on the surface. These seismic images look nothing like underground rivers... they look exactly like canyons that were cut by a river while exposed to the surface. Why should we think they were not at one time exposed to the surface? WHY???? Because you say a world wide flood deposited the entire geological column in a single event? Just because you say so????
If you want only scientists at EvC PUT UP A SIGN SAYING SO AND THE REST OF US WILL STAY AWAY.
That's not the point at all, that is your martyr complex showing again. The point is you say that we are so blind to facts soooo obvious that anyone with a brain should be able to see it, but when we ask you to make simple observations and draw simple conclusions about a claim you have made, you declare "I don't care!!! I am right anyway!!!"
That's why nobody sees these "obvious" facts you cling so tightly to.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 03-11-2015 1:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 1:13 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 157 of 409 (752697)
03-12-2015 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by herebedragons
03-12-2015 8:14 AM


It's not about the terminology, it's about why we think these "buried canyons" were at one time on the surface. These seismic images look nothing like underground rivers... they look exactly like canyons that were cut by a river while exposed to the surface.
OK but just because they "look like" canyons that were cut by a river on the surface doesn't prove that's what they are. However, it's interesting enough and I have the time now so maybe I'll go take a look.
Why should we think they were not at one time exposed to the surface? WHY???? Because you say a world wide flood deposited the entire geological column in a single event? Just because you say so????
The point was to claim that there is possibly another way of interpreting the images, that's all. When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by herebedragons, posted 03-12-2015 8:14 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:04 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 158 of 409 (752699)
03-12-2015 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
03-12-2015 1:13 PM


When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation
ITYM anothert plausible interpretation. We know there's always an infinity of ridiculous interpretations such as invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters or invisible space walruses.
So a YEC's task is to come up with a plausible interpretation and convince us using evidence that it's plausible. We could be convinced by another plausible explanation with evidence or be convinced to question the mainstream interpretation. But all you present is your implacable determination that mainstream science must be wrong. You have no interpretations to offer because you haven't examined any of the relevant evidence. All you have to offer is fantasies from the voices in your head.
'The point is that I see no reason to think of any of what is seismically imaged and called "ancient rivers" or "canyons" was ever on the surface.' when you have no knowledge of those canyons whatsoever isn't an interpretation. It's a fairy story.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 1:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 159 of 409 (752703)
03-12-2015 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
03-12-2015 1:13 PM


OK but just because they "look like" canyons that were cut by a river on the surface doesn't prove that's what they are.
It makes me wonder that you require experienced geophysicists to have such a high standard of 'absolute proof', when you do not apply the same standard to your own theory (if you had one, that is).
The point was to claim that there is possibly another way of interpreting the images, that's all.
If you have another interpretation, we'd love to see it.
When another interpretation is possible it doesn't prove anything about which is correct but it may certainly raise some doubt about the accepted interpretation.
So, what interpretation do you have that is possible? And just for the heck of it, I want 'proof'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 1:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:21 PM edge has replied

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


Message 160 of 409 (752707)
03-12-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by edge
03-12-2015 2:04 PM


The other interpretation is only that the imaged phenomena weren't necessarily ever above ground. I wasn't saying more than that. Since you don't have solid proof, just that it looks that way to you, that is a plausible interpretation it seems to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:04 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 2:30 PM Faith has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 161 of 409 (752709)
03-12-2015 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
03-12-2015 2:21 PM


The other interpretation is only that the imaged phenomena weren't necessarily ever above ground. I wasn't saying more than that. Since you don't have solid proof, just that it looks that way to you, that is a plausible interpretation it seems to me.
What makes it plausible?
How do you come to that interpretation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:21 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 2:51 PM edge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 162 of 409 (752710)
03-12-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
03-12-2015 2:21 PM


That's not an interpretation at all, it's just a refusal to examine the evidence. Denial is not an interpretation.
The evidence clearly shows, to us and many others, that those features were formed by the processes we see today when they were exposed at the surface. We'd certainly be willing to consider another interpretation (as I said).
An interpretation would consist of a discussion of the features and a hypothesis about how those features formed. We got one, you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:43 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 163 of 409 (752712)
03-12-2015 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by JonF
03-12-2015 2:30 PM


You guys make WAY too much of such comments from me. The idea as I understood it was that it "looks like" phenomena on the surface and that was the entirety of the claim to evidence. And I figured it wouldn't occur to them that possibly it never was on the surface so I very helpfully suggested that possibility. There are so many claims for Old Earth Geology and against the Flood I have to pick and choose and that isn't one I'd expect to spend a lot of time on at this point so the suggestion that maybe the "river valley" was never on the surface is all I wanted to put out there. If they'd claimed very rigorous open-and-shut evidence I might have spent some time on it. Might. But as I said, it's just one of those thousands of claims that I can't spend my life on. I put time in on the issues that strike me as the best possibilities for making a case, and this isn't one of them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by JonF, posted 03-12-2015 2:30 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 172 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by jar, posted 03-12-2015 5:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 164 of 409 (752713)
03-12-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by edge
03-12-2015 2:29 PM


What makes it plausible?
How do you come to that interpretation?
Basically, if it disagrees with you (actually, every geologist on the planet), then it is plausible to Faith, so from now on she can cite that as evidence.
If it disagrees with you,
it must be true.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 2:29 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 03-12-2015 2:55 PM Tanypteryx has replied

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


Message 165 of 409 (752715)
03-12-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2015 2:51 PM


Mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.
It's not IMplausible, they can't say for sure can they? No, they only say it LOOKS LIKE stuff they've seen on the surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 2:51 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2015 3:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 170 by jar, posted 03-12-2015 3:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 173 by edge, posted 03-12-2015 3:29 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