Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,284 Year: 5,541/9,624 Month: 566/323 Week: 63/143 Day: 6/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 4 of 380 (712342)
12-03-2013 12:54 AM


Looking forward to learn from you
Welcome, I'm looking forward to learn from you
Could you, before you start, indicate whether you have any qualifications in any of the natural sciences? If you do, which one of them and your field of expertise?
Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 10:02 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 5 of 380 (712343)
12-03-2013 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by scienceishonesty
12-02-2013 11:41 PM


One thing I don't understand is why you've got this either creation or evolution stance, seeing that the overwhelming majority of religious scientists also accept the theory of evolution?
It thus seems that it's not an either or situation. Why do you think it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-02-2013 11:41 PM scienceishonesty has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-03-2013 10:19 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(7)
Message 162 of 380 (712696)
12-06-2013 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
12-06-2013 4:33 AM


This one was quote humerous:
.....and the smoke and mirrors fantasy of the speculative sciences of the ancient past
The mining companies I work for are pretty happy about the 'speculative sciences of the ancient past' built by geologists. Those models seem to be very accurate. And mining companies tend to make lots of money using those models. Those models work.
I've never seen a mining company praying for their models. I've always seen them paying geologists to do the work, though.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:33 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by dwise1, posted 12-06-2013 10:45 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 164 of 380 (712700)
12-06-2013 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
12-06-2013 4:33 AM


This one is funny:
I'll say it again. Archaeology is one of the sciences that deals with the past where the interpretations and speculations cannot be verified.
Excuse me. It sure can.
The objective, empirical, verifiable evidence. You've got nothing, Faith. Just an old book. One amongst thousands of them.
Archaeology has got objective, empirical, verifiable evidence.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 4:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 12-06-2013 1:50 PM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
(1)
Message 274 of 380 (712979)
12-09-2013 12:50 AM


Faith's 'arguments' (about those photos placed in this thread ) remind me about a great post from Dr Adequate some time ago. It explained exactly what ‘uniformatism’ is and how it is used by geologists.
EvC Forum: Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
quote:
Doesn't the "creationist literature" seem a bit forced, even to you?
Let me explain what I mean. To an actualist like myself, nothing is more simple and straightforward than sedimentology. Those things that look like lithified flaser deposits? They're lithified flaser deposits. The things that look eactly like lithified sand dunes? They're lithified sand dunes. The things that look exactly like lithified varves of proglacial lakes? They're lithified varves of proglacial lakes. The rocks that look just like welded tuff? They are welded tuff. The stuff that looks exactly like glacial moraines? Those would be glacial moraines. Chalk looks exactly like the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths, and I have an explanation for that. It is the product of millions of years deposition of coccoliths.
And you guys want to explain this by one singular event. All these things are somehow consequences of your imaginary magic flood.
Don't you yourself find this attitude rather difficult?
Let's do another analogy. Walking through the Serengeti, I notice the footprints of lions and zebras and elephants and so forth. I determine that these are the footprints of elephants and so forth. I see that what I identify as the footprints of elephants are the exact same shape as the feet of elephants. I note that the stride length of these footprints are exactly consistent with the stride length of elephants. I watch elephants walk, and look at the footprints they leave, and I see that these impressions are exactly the same as those that I see in the Serengeti. I do the same with the footprints of the zebras and the lions and the giraffes.
Then some man comes up to me and states that despite all this, these footprints were left by one single animal that no-one has ever seen.
This man is a creationist.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:03 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
(1)
Message 276 of 380 (712981)
12-09-2013 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:03 AM


Yes, you can. We see them all over. Seen those photo's provided on this thread? They are lithified beach deposits.
If it looks like a lithified sand dune, it surely is not a chocolate cake from your mommy's kitchen. It is a lithified sand dune.
Do you even know what the word lithified means? Let me give you a hint: it doesn't mean 'magic'.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:12 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
(1)
Message 279 of 380 (712984)
12-09-2013 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:12 AM


Sure. Lithified sand dunes in the Clarens Formation, Karoo Sequence.
Some of the many, many references ( I just reference two groundbreaking of many, many studies here):
Du Toit, A.L. 1918. The zones of the Karoo System and their distribution: Proc. Geol. Soc S. Afr., 21, p xviii-xxxvii
Beukes, N.J. 1969. Die sedimentologie van Etage Holkranssandsteen, Sisteem Karoo: M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Orange Free State.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:50 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
(1)
Message 284 of 380 (712989)
12-09-2013 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
12-09-2013 1:50 AM


Faith writes:
You are being of course as vague as possible, but the Karoo system is full of fossils
Not being vague at all. Those references are there for you to read. The Karoo Sequence does contain fossils; they are in sequence from the bottom to the top. Both plant and animal fossils. In different members and formations. Those members, formations and groups also have a pattern from bottom to top...
... and therefore represents the Flood deposits which would include lithified sediments.
Err, all lithified sediments are lithified sediments.
... As I said, which you apparently ignored, you will not find lithified beaches or dunes on the SURFACE of the earth, ....
Not ignored at all. It's obvious that you don't know what the word 'lithified' means.
... only in the strata and wherever lithified sediments with fossil contents are found, that is, where they were rapidly buried so as to become lithified and the buried creatures fossilized.
Err. Hope you do know that organic material normally have to get buried for fossilisation to occur.
That describes the Karoo.
Nope.
Have you ever seen a Karoo 'rock'? Hope you do know that tens of thousands of geologists have actually studied those rocks, themselves?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 1:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
(1)
Message 286 of 380 (712991)
12-09-2013 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 AM


Faith writes:
Show me a lithified beach please that was never buried, or a lithified sand dune that was never buried.
You still don't know what the word 'lithified' means.
And stop being so cutesy about the Karoo formation. I know it contains a bazillion fossils....
So do those geologists and paleontologists who actually study the Karoo Sequence.
... so I regard it as a Flood deposit.
Luckily what or what or not you regard is of no value at all. What is important are those tens of thousands of geologists and palaeontologists who have actually studied the Karoo Sequence. And publish their findings.
Those mining companies, hiring those tens of thousands of geologists, are way more important than you. Unlike you, they actually put their money where their mouths are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:25 AM Pressie has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
(1)
Message 290 of 380 (712995)
12-09-2013 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Tangle
12-09-2013 2:18 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Tangle wrote:
It's the most successful conspiracy of all time: it's independent of political party, religion, gender, race, and country and it's held up for a couple of centuries. It even seems to work in the real world - finding oil, making drugs, sending mechanical objects far into space.
It sure must be the most successfull conspiracy theory ever. I can see old Igor (ex-KGB), Fritz (German Intelligence agency), Lee (Chinese Intelligence Agency), Bro (CIA), David (Mossad), Muhammed (Iranian Intelligence Agency), Carlos (Argentinian Intelligence Agency); Japie (South African Intelligence agency), Nigel (SI5); all sitting together around a camp fire (at Camp David, most propably) declaring:
'The world is lots of years old', take that. Stuff the YEC "research"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Tangle, posted 12-09-2013 2:18 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:44 AM Pressie has replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 295 of 380 (713002)
12-09-2013 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:44 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Faith writes:
quote:
Meanwhile I've made some very simple points that absolutely demolish Old Earth theory and you all ignore them. Oh yes, Ignore Faith, that's a biggie you all play, and you all play Change the Subject.
Really? Please explain exactly what 'Old Earth theory' is. I've never heard of such a scientific theory in my life.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:44 AM Faith has not replied

Pressie
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 297 of 380 (713006)
12-09-2013 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Faith
12-09-2013 4:20 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
You wrote:
No, I don't consider them to be intentionally deceiving us, I think they are deceived but it's got an iron grip on them they refuse to let go. I have nothing against geology as such you see, but I have a lot against evolutionism, and since geologists are also evolutionists insofar as they share the same view of the strata and the fossil record, I call them evolutionists. It's really not such a complicated thing as you would prefer to make it out to be.
Do you actually know what you write, Faith? Living in Colorado I guess? (Nothing against people of Colorado at all. Legally smoking weed from the first of January is what I'm referring to). Whoopieeeeeee!
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : Chamged sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 4:20 AM Faith 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