Some help for the TC model

pushing

Off to KU for the weekend. Will watch for a reply.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"JM: Not at all, but that in itself leads to some issues. You have presented a half-cocked hypothesis on a subject (which you now admit) you don't understand fully."
--It wasn't presented as conclusive.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: How could it have been? You gave no details and no science, but you did assert that you knew what you were talking about. Show me by answering the questions.

​

quote:

---

"Most of us try to understand something before we present foolish ideas."
--I would highly doubt they are any more 'foolish' than the theory on planet formation or the nebula hypothesis at this point. (besides it being your opinion) I am pretending that we are a bit more equal than a bunch of arguing nap-nap dog-eat-dog debaters here and present the ideas and see how it is worked out and find its consequences and what refinement is needed.

---

​

JM: Unfortunately, we are not about equal on this topic. There is no reason to argue that we are. I have significant training in the subject and you, through no fault of your own, have very little. You can learn by asking questions and not pretending you know more than you do. We all have to start somewhere and you should not feel that I am trying to put you down by noting your naivete and unfamiliarity with the basics. What you should not do is argue points which you don't yet understand.

​

quote:

---

"Just about everything you've presented with regard to geology has been naively incorrect and inconsistent. That is because you don't know the topic well enough yet to make reasoned arguments."
--I have presented very little inconsistant, let alone incorrect assertions in geology in my discussion with you.

---

​

JM: Yes, you have. Unfortunately, your naivete does not allow you to recognize the limits of your own knowledge. It's one thing to argue confidently and quite another to argue confidently with understanding. At this point in your life, you don't know enough to argue your points with understanding. The good news is that can be cured!

​

[QUOTE]"Work on answering the questions I posed here and explain why the oceans today are more than 50 meters deep when your hypothesis predicts that the oceans would only be ~50 meters deep."
--Emphesize on the latter, what exactly is it you mean.
[/b]

---

Answer the questions at the beginning of this thread and stop dodging them. Explain why the oceans are deeper than your model predicts. Show me you understand by demonstrating it.CheersJoe Meert (lost in Kansas)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
I think that TC, while probably well meaning and truly believing what he says, will be unable to demonstrate his points using your model. I have run into this time and time again with creationists trying to make points in my own field, biochemistry, concerning this Irreducible complexity nonsense. When the flaws are pointed out to them, both w.r.t. theory and fact, they pretty much ignore the relevant data for their own interpretation or accuse me of acting sole

---

JM:I agree, that's precisely why I asked the questions. Anyone can make an argument 'sound' good as long as there aren't any details to get in the way. TC has created a model which de-railed itself before it was on track (if that's possible).CheersJoe Meert

just curious if this is now a dead horse from the creationist perspective.CheersJoe Meert

Mark,Indeed I will. Here is draft one:OCeansCheersJoe Meert

Well TC, I've outlined part of the problem for you. How about it?CheersJoe Meert

gentle nudge to the top

On final time. Has TC disappeared? Any other ye-creationist want to pick up the fumble?CheersJoe Meert

Thanks Percy, I'll push this back up in a couple of weeks.CheersJoe Meert

TCNow that you're back.CheersJoe Meert

making sure tc doesn't forget about this

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]Don't worry Joe, I didn't forget about it, the Global Flood is one of my favorite discussions. So lets see, regarding your equation, I was going to either ask you a series of questions, then I had another thought that could would be much quicker and easier. Instead of me asking you questions on how to express the variables in your problem, It would be very much help if you could create imaginary variables and insert them into the equation with their correct form of expression (refering to a number in miles/kilometers, Centegrade/Ferenheit/Kalvin, etc.). Also, it is important to know that I can't just imput these variables off the top of my head, I would have to obtain the information and research as I am in the progress of doing to know sufficiently correct estimates. [/QUOTE]JM: Making sure you don't forget. I understand it would be very easy for you if I supplied the variables; however, you need to gain insight into the math and the physics behind the equations. Therefore, I think it best that you trudge through it on your own. That way, you input your own variables and you generate your own model. We can discuss the nuances of your model once you present it.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: Making sure you don't forget. I understand it would be very easy for you if I supplied the variables; however, you need to gain insight into the math and the physics behind the equations. Therefore, I think it best that you trudge through it on your own. That way, you input your own variables and you generate your own model. We can discuss the nuances of your model once you present it."
--Hm.. well I guess you missunderstood my post, I am not questioning the physics, but the way variables should be expressed such as my example of meters, feet, kilometers, centegrade, kalvin, etc. Do you see what I am getting at? I had just looked over your paper at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/oceans.htm, I found that you answer my questions at your reference 7 as to the form of expression. Though Velocity, what unit of measure should be used, the same for age, mantle temp, average age of subducted crust, and at what depth is mantle density taken at?

​

---

JM: No, I didn't misunderstand you at all. Part of understanding the physics and the equation is knowing what units to use and where the information came from. I've done quite a bit of the work for you already, I want you to do some now.CheersJoe Meert

TC:Just to keep this in the same vein, you said that the flood sediments are Cambrian through Tertiary, right? So the latest glaciations are after the flood and from your selection there were at least two glaciations before the flood and at least two glaciations during the flood. Why did the bible not mention the glaciations? The bible claims the entire globe was covered at some point during the flood. According to you, what strata globally were laid down during the time the earth was entirely covered by water?CheersJo eMeert