Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,448 Year: 6,705/9,624 Month: 45/238 Week: 45/22 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An attempt to let Flood supporters explain how things were created
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 64 of 70 (833812)
05-26-2018 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 7:27 AM


As I explained here, the key difference as with the Mt ST Helens example, is that the canyon that was caused on days, created effects caused by catastrophe which scientists would never have predicted could happen such as the laminated strata, and a canyon itself.
Actually, I would.
There are plenty of examples of rapid erosion from waves, rivers and ice. Here is an article about it from the people who know - engineering geologists.
https://www.aegweb.org/page/Erosion?
Of some interest is this observation:
quote:
"The result of such abrasion varies based the material being eroded. For example, a stream in soft sediments will erode more quickly than a stream through solid rock; the same is true for the erosion of a sandy beach versus that of a rocky coastline."
And soft, unconsolidated sediments (or volcanic ash, etc.) can erode with almost no resistance.
The point I am making is, with long ages and uniformity, ...
You need to stop right here. Your problem is that with long ages and uniformity there is no problem.
... the arguments are based on witnessed processes in the present, but with catastrophes which cause strange features, if that catastrophe has never been witnessed by anyone, then we can't predict all of it's effects, we can only wait until a similar catastrophe such as the canyon created at Mt St Helens, occurs, ...
What you are really telling us is that YEC actually doesn't know anything about its favorite geological event.
... then we can say, "wow look at these effects, who would have thought it."
Plenty of people.
Your position is a strawman argument.
CONCLUSION: Obviously to say before that canyon was made at St Helens, "these features can't be created quickly", ...
Well, considering that no one ever said that ...
... would have been a type of argued ignorance, because really they just didn't know how a catastrophe could cause those features.
Now you admit that you are arguing from ignorance because nobody knows what such an event would do. You don't know, do you?
So while I agree there are evidences which don't seem to fit all that well with a flood, I think basically it is to argue from ignorance to say it can't happen because we don't know how it could have.
The only people saying this seem to be on your side.
Human beings don't know a lot of things, but things that occur are not predicated on humans understanding those events, logically speaking.
And there are a lot of things that human beings DO know. Why should we ignore those things?
P.s. So bickering over these selective selections, would seem to me to be to take the bait a bit.
Ummm, sure. Avoid anything that might refute your position. Let's just declare all engineering geology off limits for this discussion. That way you can make up whatever you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 7:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 65 of 70 (833813)
05-26-2018 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 8:44 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
Then to my mind the thread is based on a faulty premise, that being that we have to answer for those ten examples.
That is correct, you do not have to answer.
Now I am not against people trying to come up with an explanation ...
Then you are in luck. This thread gives you, or anyone else, the opportunity to explore possibilities.
... but I believe largely because we can't test a flood scenario and we can't test your conclusion, "ergo it is trash" then the topic itself is not so consequential, logically speaking.
This is, of course, very convenient for you. This way you can make up whatever you want. Don't complain.
But no, we can do thought experiments using what we DO ACTUALLY know. The problem is that we keep coming up with normal geological processes to give us what we see in the real world.
It would be just as unfair to open a thread with all of the anomalies for eons of age and say, "you can't discuss any evidence that fits with eons of age".
No one is saying that you can't use your 'creation science', just that you need to defend it.
The real problem is that no one has ever done so.
All these years of YEC science and nothing to show for it.
"You cannot be serious". - John McEnroe.
Unfortunately, YEC cognition trails YEC seriousness by light-years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 8:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1958 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 68 of 70 (833816)
05-27-2018 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by mike the wiz
05-26-2018 9:28 AM


Re: And so Mike offers nothing relevant.
It's also rhetorical spin, because you're basically saying, "this is what mike said, means, it means creationist song and dance" but I think my points were actually very good ones based on a true example of a scientific event at Mt St Helens where a canyon was created.
The problem is that you have left out the science part of your scientific event. Have you ever studied erosion, volcanism or sedimentation?
How familiar are you with MSH? Have you been there? Have you read anything but creationist sources?
I'm not trying to be mean here. But your statements do not really connect with reality. For instance, no geologist has ever said that all deposits occur slowly. Nor has any ever said that all erosion occurs slowly.
Don't get me wrong, YECs say it all the time. They know you will believe them.
This is geology 101 stuff. And yet, you say it as a fact. It simply isn't so, but it you have a direct quote (in context) of any mainstream geologist saying so, please provide it and we can have a discussion. You've really got to get away from YEC sources.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 05-26-2018 9:28 AM mike the wiz 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