Summations Only

The usual innuendo in the title gives little hope of honest discussion. Especially when providing technical details also gives rise to false accusations of dishonesty.However the conclusions are based on evidence and it can be found.Just the other day I came across an example reported at
Ars TechnicaScientists investigating the climate following the Chicxulub impact went to Tunisia where there is a good geological record of the period after impact. There they extracted fossil fish bones, which could be chemically analysed. The ratio of oxygen isotopes present in the environment depends on the temperature, and the oxygen incorporated into the bones will represent the environment at the time the fish lived.They found that there was evidence of warming by about 5 degrees Celsius after the impact, which persisted for a period of about 100,000 years.

quote:

---

But the background of the thread is my objection to the whole idea that there are any time periods at all, that there is such a thing as a Jurassic Period, that there is such a thing as the Geological Time Scale.

---

Yes, people are saying things you don’t like and your response is - as always - to try to smear them. And apparently you think Jesus did the same sort of thing.But in fact these ideas you object to are well supported by evidence, we have discussed enough of it for you to know that. Thus your claims of deception are false.

quote:

---

So it's seemed to me I'm the only one here who mentions that the time periods are interpreted from a mere flat rock and its contents.

---

They aren’t. True all the evidence from geology comes from the rocks - where else could it come from? But as we have explained to you the geological periods are derived from a massive effort correlating and relating the strata over large areas.

quote:

---

That's why it's good to get ANY acknowledgment that it is indeed the stuff in the rock that is interpreted into the time period landscape

---

You must be the only person who doesn’t find it too obvious to be worth mentioning.

quote:

---

But I also still think it's all a crock. Nevertheless I think it should be made a lot more explicit exactly what stuff in what rock is interpreted as evidence of features in the supposed time period. The connection should be made explicit in every case.

---

Obviously not. We don’t require that if other pop science articles, and it would make for much longer and much more repetitive articles, giving details that many readers aren’t likely to want.

quote:

---

I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.

---

Since this behaviour is just normal journalism - and the articles are written by journalists, not scientists - it doesn’t seem to prove any such thing.

quote:

---

There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location. You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.

---

It would take more than a sentence to explain even one item of evidence. See my first post in the thread where I try to distill a popular article. A short paragraph for each piece of evidence, and for multiple pieces of evidence would seem the minimum.And you want that material repeated every article that deals with the situation in prehistoric times.And what makes you think that everyone else wants that level of detail? There’s nothing dishonest about reporting generally accepted scientific views.

quote:

---

AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing. Maybe that's why the pontifical method is preferred.

---

This thread is doing a good job of showing that isn’t true.

If you were really interested in honesty you would admit that the Flood is the best explanation for the geological and fossil records only in the sense that it’s the least bad explanation that fits with YEC dogma.As an actual explanation it is utterly useless.Edited by Admin, : Re-render the post - the single and double quotes had somehow gotten screwed up.

Of course Faith could try simple mathematics.If we generously allow 10,000 years for the growth of the atoll, and 3000 years of accelerated growth there are 7000 years of normal growthIt would take 175,000 years to account for the growth of the atoll at the maximum normal rate. Subtracting the 7000 years means that we must account for 168,000 years worth of growth in 3000 years.That means the average rate over the 3000 years would need to be 56x greater than the maximum recorded rate. I think we need more than handwaving to justify such a rate when the estimate is already extremely generous to the YEC side - a figure of 100x would likely still err in the Creationists favour.

quote:

---

It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven

---

National Geographic is not a part of the scientific community. The existence of the Jurassic Period is hardly in question, and the evidence is certainly there for the generalised impressions of it that are given. And they are just generalisations when applied to the period.

quote:

---

It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.

---

Really ? Please support this claim. Remembering that journalists aren’t scientists.

quote:

---

They are a science magazine.

---

Writing about science doesn’t make them scientists.

quote:

---

They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.

---

That’s your assertion. However if it were true you would be dealing with the actual evidence instead of making accusations based on presumed motives.

The obvious objection is that it puts too much emphasis on selection. While selection dominates adaptive evolution there is still a significant amount of evolutionary change - especially at the genetic level - that is due to drift.On further thought I think it should be taken as a description, not a definition. For instance universal common descent is not in any way an essential part of the theory and shouldn’t appear in a definition.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Faith I understand that it must be painful to have your errors exposed. This is not a welcoming site to pride-filled arrogant dogmatists who can’t be bothered to get their facts right.Percy is quite right to point out that you are not good at Physics. Not even High School level Physics.Denying depositional environments is just saying that sedimentation doesn’t happen. Which is rather silly since it is observed in the present day. And no, rising water over the short term would not produce the sequences expected over a much longer term. You don’t even understand your own ideas if you think otherwise.

quote:

---

I also deny the ridiculous idea that there were a number of sea transgressions and regressions. You think it impossible to account for one worldwide Flood and yet you have, what, six?

---

We have none as you ought to realise by now. Covering some of the land - even relatively large portions of it - is not covering all of it,

quote:

---

Why don't you just put a banner up at the top of EvC saying

​

CREATIONISTS NOT WELCOME HERE.

---

If your idea of being welcome is being given a free pass on arrogant boasting, inventions, false accusations and misrepresentations then nobody is welcome here.

It isn’t claiming to offer a definition. It is offering a description which is probably over-simplified, but possibly tailored to its intended audience.The site is clearly a journalistic enterprise rather than a strictly scientific one, too. Which makes it a rather odd choice if your target is the scientists.

Please explain how the Flood could produce a meander.Until you can do that your claim is just nonsense and the sensible explanation is that offered by conventional geology.

quote:

---

Oh I've explained that many many times

---

Zero is not many.

quote:

---

It is the Kaibab Plateau that the meanders are cut into, far east of the Grand Canyon proper, and meanders begin with sheets of water running across flat areas and then forming curves that cut into the surface.

---

How could that possibly happen ? With enough force to cut rock ?No, still no sign of any actual explanation.

quote:

---

It wasn't rock, we're talking receding Flood here, it was just-deposited sediments, compacted but still wet and malleable.

---

By my understanding that would be a problem for your model. The walls wouldn’t be solid enough to stand as they are.However, you still haven’t explained why receding Flood water would cut a tight curve. Until you can do that you have no explanation.

quote:

---

???????
It had receded to the point that it was running in streams and rivers across the flat Kaibab Plateau.

---

So it wouldn’t cut a meander. That’s what I thought.

quote:

---

Rivers cut meanders in flat surfaces.

---

Rivers, yes. Flood run-off no. It’s a slow process that requires the presence of banks.

quote:

---

Typical deceit Paul. You just took a small quote out of context.

---

Typical false accusations. There’s nothing in the context that changes the meaning, nothing that makes the forming of a meander at all likely.