Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Soracilla defends the Flood? (mostly a "Joggins Polystrate Fossils" discussion)
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 151 of 190 (193000)
03-21-2005 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by NosyNed
03-21-2005 12:48 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Since you have already translated it could you just quote the relevant passages. Then you can explain why this reference is about a century after the debate got going.
Actually, more like 1.5-2 centuries, and about 75 years after the fact that the Earth was incredibly old (compared to human history) was established. I mean, as I quoted in another thread, Rutherford demonstrated a minimum age of about 500 million years in 1906!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 03-21-2005 12:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 152 of 190 (193004)
03-21-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RandyB
03-20-2005 10:17 PM


Way OT: foundations of the TOE
It is a fact that many (if not most) science textbooks today state that they either have "no proof" of a Creator, or that most scientists today believe, or accept that we "evolved" from lower life-forms -- and that they further believe that we somehow began from one-celled organisms -- that somehow began from chemicals, or bubbles, or an asteroid impact, or a comet impact, or from space aliens -- anything but God.
Well, that's an overstatement, but not far from true; the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have established that religious explanations do not belong in science classes. We do have no scientific proof of a creator, many (and probably most) scientists today do believe that we evolved from simple replicators formed by naturalistic means, and teaching otherwise would be lying. But it also has nothing to do with your orginal statement for which I requested a reference. Your original statement was:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Therefore, Darwins most basic foundation -- that there is No Creator involved with the Creation -- is a Lie.
Jon Said: The TOE (i.e. Theory of Evolution) is not founded on any such thing. The TOE works even if there were a creator involved in the creation.
Randy: That is not the way it is taught in public Schools.
So what you need to defend is the claim that public shoolchildren are taught that the most basic foundation of the theory of evolution is that there was no Creator involved, the the TOE would not work if a Creator originally created life. They are, of course, not taught that there was a Creator involved, because there is no scientific evidence for such a thing; but they are not taught that the theory of evolution is founded on such a supposition, because that would be a lie. For example, theistic evolutionists believe in Divine creation of life and evolution thereafter, and that's no problem for the theory of evolution. Darwin's theory and the modern theory of evolution do not require or make any presumption of how life came to be.
Your original claim is flat-out wrong, and you can't come up with a lesson plan or textbook that supports it because there is no such thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RandyB, posted 03-20-2005 10:17 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 10:47 AM JonF has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 190 (193322)
03-22-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by NosyNed
03-21-2005 12:48 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Since you have already translated it could you just quote the relevant passages. Then you can explain why this reference is about a century after the debate got going.
Response: Bolsche discusses this, along with Compte de Buffon, and Charles Lyell and how they came to their respective conclusions about the Age of the Earth and how the issue of coal formation played a significant part (if coals were formed via in situ forest growth). If you don't believe me then buy the book for yourself and look it up, Or you can simply read this web page and look up the refs that they give (that are in English). See Link below.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 03-21-2005 12:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 10:36 AM RandyB has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 154 of 190 (193330)
03-22-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by RandyB
03-22-2005 10:26 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
The linked page only mentions Lyell, and it offers no references to the writings of Lyell - let alone Boelsche or Buffon.
Perhaps you meant to offer a different link ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 10:26 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:01 AM PaulK has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 190 (193335)
03-22-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by JonF
03-21-2005 7:40 AM


Re: Way OT: foundations of the TOE
Jon F Said: "... the US Constitution and the Supreme Court have established that religious explanations do not belong in science classes. We do have no scientific proof of a creator,..."
Dear John: If, based on what we KNOW about the complexity of the cell (i.e. that not even the most basic Protein molecule -- of only 8 amino acids -- has ever been observed to form naturally) tells us that Life as we know it (or anything close to it) is impossible by any method known to man, then the only other possibility it that of Creation. This is not "religious" but science and Logic. On the other hand, based on these facts of basic biology, anyone who believes in Evolution is doing so out of their own choice: by faith -- and a LOT more of it than what it takes to believe in a Creator.
Here are more details as to what I am taling about
Evolution Theory vs Creationism – How Old Is The Earth? – Earth Age
PS: If you disagree then, by all means, tell us how you believe that that first Mycoplasma got itself going.
Or perhaps you would care to tell us why you think it wasn't Created by an intelligence that is far superior to ours.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 03-21-2005 7:40 AM JonF has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 190 (193341)
03-22-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
03-22-2005 10:36 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Lyell's book was called: Principles of Geology, It was published in 1830
Not Found
The other book I referenced that also discusses Buffon is called:
Im Steinkohlenwald = In the Coal-forming Forest,
By Wilhelm Blsche, 1906--
Sorry it isn't available online however you can order it from ZVAB - Zentrales Verzeichnis Antiquarischer Bcher | Antiquarische und vergriffene Bcher online bestellen
I am also not willing to publish it on my web page, nor to give away my English translation of it at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 10:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 11:08 AM RandyB has replied
 Message 158 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:14 AM RandyB has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 157 of 190 (193344)
03-22-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RandyB
03-22-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Please give the volume and chapter number where Lyell discusses coal and the age of the Earth.
Also can you explain the reason for including the link when it offered only an unsupported and unreferenced assertion ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:01 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:25 AM PaulK has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 190 (193347)
03-22-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by RandyB
03-22-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Here is One Portion of the Book that I translated Betweem pages 15-17.
Barely one human life separated Scheuchzer from Buffon at the height of their influence. How differently things already stood, however, when Buffon published his timely work of the Epochs of Nature.
To the contemporaries of that time, like Goethe, who understood it, this book was like a new Bible. In reality, it meant the first radical break of geology with the dogma of the absolute truth of the biblical account of creation; it provided a characteristic new creation story, in fact a natural one, constructed (built) with the complete knowledge of that day in a framework of brilliant imagination. After his first remarks about these things, the theological faculty of Paris had the young Buffon reprimanded and forced a revocation similar to what was done to Galileo. Afterwards however, on the eve of the great revolution, its genesis re-ignited and they could no longer stop it, while the writings of Rousseau and Voltaire revolutionized other intellectual areas, and Buffon became a world-famous man.
Top of P. 16
This book did not merely look at the primeval world in the short time span before the flood, but rather saw in it a quite larger picture, where universal devolopment saw one epoch after another replace that which came before it, and where the origin of the coal from primeval vegetation is already presupposed as an established fact and is described with the clearest (of) words.
The earth has cooled off. The water was spread out over its surface and then locally withdrew. Enormous periods of time have already passed; -- not exactly the (same) millions of years of our geology today, but enough milleniums in order to leave the Bible believers far behind. Still, a universal heat prevails over land and sea. In it the oldest life now arises -- partly in species that no longer exist. Mussels and ammonites populate the ocean, whereas on the hotter land, an immense growth of plant life takes place. To which we owe the coal.
It owes continues Buffon (and it is worth digging out (into) this lost place itself again like an old spirit), its origin to the first plants which were formed upon (by) the earth; all the land that was first elevated above the water witnessed the beginning of an immense abundance of herbs and trees of each sex; fallen due to (old) age, they were washed out by the waters and formed endless (infinite) store houses of vegetable material.
The sea impregnated the woods with bituminous substances which themselves were already a decomposition product of the plant bodies (matter). After drifting and being tossed around these plant masses subsequently settled onto fresh clay strata. In time it was again covered by clay; in this way such coal formation, and clay covering, repeated this same scenario (in the same place) several times, again and again, so that plant deposits and clay deposits alternate with one another (layer upon layer).
P. 17 (same paragraph). No doubt difficult to understand thought Buffon where this enormous mass of vegetation remains could have came from, and how they became so considerably thick and widespread, presumably extending over vast (almost endless) places of the earth. However if one thinks of the still more endless masses of plant growth, which must have taken twenty or twenty five thousand years to produce, and considers that the human being was not around yet to burn down forests, one will understand how enormous layers had to form only from plant deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note also that Buffon didn't believe that the Coal grew where is was buried, but rather that is was laid down as a sedimentary deposit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:01 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:21 AM RandyB has not replied
 Message 160 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 11:24 AM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 190 (193350)
03-22-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by RandyB
03-22-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Here is a section of pp. 23-24 of Bolsche's Book: Translated into English.
One saw that for all those frightful catastrophe traditions, no clue whatsoever (from the excessive quantities) was present, probably (perhaps) because of a steady (continually) prevailing of the same slow natural processes like we see today. The transformations (changes) had likely taken place without exception quite slowly over long periods of time. P. 24 (SP). Continents had not suddenly subsided (sunk), mountains had not sprung up in a few days. If a country’s mountains had vanished in the course of geological periods, and water had taken their place, like gradual weathering that eroded its rock over eons of time, as it does today, a coast was step by step crumbled into the sea like today’s (rocky) cliffs of Helgoland, incredibly slow raisings and lowerings (subsidence), over thousands of centuries, folded the earth’s crust and arched it up without any sheer break in the alpine chain.
However, as is the habit with well-founded facts: nevertheless, the coal-theory also, finally, and patiently fit into this picture.
Now from Lyell’s school the major emphasis was put on the often, regular occurrence of coal seams with clay strata, which Buffon already described so well. It was put out (played out) against each sudden catastrophic ending.
Within the period itself, the type of deposit apparently changed a number of times in the same spot, and so on, a sign of diverse change that took place (ran its course), however, in regular sequence through the entire period, instead of heaping itself (up) merely at its end, and that apparently had never completely destroyed life because higher up again and again lay seams of coal, thus forest remains, pure mud sediments, and so forth. The (time) duration of such period lengthened this new school of thought (theory) even more (further) by an enourmous amount than Cuvier himself ever ventured (dared). To bring out everything so beautiful now simply required (that) each period occur slowly over millions of years. And this lengthening of time measure has in fact gone on and on since then also with the most prudent researchers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:14 AM RandyB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 11:33 AM RandyB has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 160 of 190 (193352)
03-22-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by RandyB
03-22-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
It seems to me that all we have here is a book about coal discussing Buffon's views on the formation of coal. I do not see anything which can reasonably be interpreted as indicating that the time taken for vegetable matter to turn to coal is a significant factor - rather it Buffon is quoted as talking of the time required to produce so much plant material. It does not even go on to argue a significant connection with Buffon's ideas about the age of the Earth.
... However if one thinks of the still more endless masses of plant growth, which must have taken twenty or twenty five thousand years to produce, and considers that the human being was not around yet to burn down forests, one will understand how enormous layers had to form only from plant deposits.
[Emphasis mine]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:14 AM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 190 (193354)
03-22-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by PaulK
03-22-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Paul asked: Please give the volume and chapter number where Lyell discusses coal and the age of the Earth.
Randy: I do NOT have a copy of Lyell's book, but you are free to purchase it yourself if you don't believe me, or if you want to check out what he says. However, according to Bolsche, coal formation played a major part in How Lyell was able to extend the Accepted age of the earth. See my last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 11:08 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 162 of 190 (193365)
03-22-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by RandyB
03-22-2005 11:21 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
So lookign at this quote.
Firstly it STARTS with an old Earth view.
Then it states that ideas of the formation of coal fit into this view.
Then it refers not to Lyell's Principles of Geology but to "Lyell's school" and refers not to the time to convert plant matter to coal but the time taken for the environmental changes required to explain the geological sequences where coal is commonly found.
But lets emphasise the major point. Neither quote states that the formation of coal was very important to estimates of the age of the Earth. The emphasis on coal seems to have more to do with the subject of the book, rather than its importance to geological thought (which is not explicitly stated in either quote).
This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-22-2005 12:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 11:21 AM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 6:37 PM PaulK has replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 190 (193514)
03-22-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by PaulK
03-22-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
Paul said: "But lets emphasise the major point. Neither quote states that the formation of coal was very important to estimates of the age of the Earth. The emphasis on coal seems to have more to do with the subject of the book, rather than its importance to geological thought (which is not explicitly stated in either quote)."
Response: Go back and read it again.
"Now from Lyell’s school the major emphasis was put on the often, regular occurrence of coal seams with clay strata... It was... (played out) against each sudden catastrophic ending."
"Within the period itself, the type of deposit apparently changed a number of times in the same spot, and so on," (i.e. the coal "forest" was buried under sedimentary rocks) "a sign of diverse change that ...(ran its course), however, in regular sequence through the entire period, instead of heaping itself (up) merely at its end, and that apparently had never completely destroyed life because higher up again and again lay seams of coal, thus forest remains, pure mud sediments, and so forth. The (time) duration of such period" (i.e. the growth in situ theory that Lyell was espousing) "lengthened this new school of thought" (about the age of the earth) "(theory) even more (further) by an enourmous amount than Cuvier himself ever ventured (dared). To bring out everything so beautiful now simply required (that) each period occur slowly over millions of years. And this lengthening of time measure has in fact gone on and on since then..."
However, now the whole issue of "millions of years" is being looked at more closely, and I believe it is based more on the wishful imaginings of die-hard evolutionists than on empirical science. You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is even a "million" years old, much less "billions."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 03-22-2005 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 6:41 PM RandyB has not replied
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2005 3:30 AM RandyB has not replied

RandyB
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 190 (193515)
03-22-2005 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RandyB
03-22-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
I just made a mistake. I said that:
"You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is even a "million" years old, much less "billions."
I forgot to insert the word "NOT" between "definitely" and "overwhelmingly" -- Hope that didn't cause any of you to freak out.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 6:37 PM RandyB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by JonF, posted 03-22-2005 7:14 PM RandyB has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 165 of 190 (193519)
03-22-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RandyB
03-22-2005 6:41 PM


Re: Old earth based on Coal - reference
You can believe it if you want to, but the evidence is definitely overwhelmingly clear that the earth is not even a "million" years old, much less "billions.
Put up or shut up, Randy. You've made claims like this on several occasions, and the only support you've offered is a bunch of old-chestnut fraudulent links.
Perhaps you would like to present this overhwhelming evidence for a young Earth? Of course, you won't be just rehashing the old creationist "criticisms" of radioisiotope dating, you'll be presenting the positive evidence, and you will present and discuss this evidence instead of just posting links.
Yeah, right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RandyB, posted 03-22-2005 6:41 PM RandyB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 03-22-2005 7:42 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 167 by RandyB, posted 03-23-2005 12:26 AM JonF 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