Some help for the TC model

"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."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."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."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.------------------

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 Joe Meert:
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.

​

---

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[I apologize for the technical difficulty with this post. The website ran out of disk space. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-31-2002]

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

Joe,If TC can't answer you, & we both know he can't, could you work through that equation for me, showing the implications for YECs. I think Joz would be interested as well.I would be grateful if you could explain it in laymans terms as well, for the mathematically challenged, not me, you understand. Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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

Wonderful stuff, cheers Joe,Mark

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

TC posted last week that he was going to take a couple weeks off because some books he had ordered had arrived and he was going to spend some time examining them.--Percy

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Thanks Percy, I'll push this back up in a couple of weeks.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

Joe,A bit off topic, but I once argued that the Grand Canyon couldn't have been the result of "flood" geology on the basis that full lithification of the strata would potentially take many thousands to millions of years. Although I was able to quote a few examples, I wonder, is there any mathematical way of calculating time from deposition to full lithification, assuming, of course, that the entire bed was laid down in one go. And on what basis were those formula derived?It seems to me that this would represent a more easily understood, & TOTAL falsification of flood stratigraphy.This,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TCNow that you're back.CheersJoe Meert