Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(7)
Message 181 of 427 (791220)
09-12-2016 8:26 PM


the utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes:
Faith keeps claiming that the geological column is evidence of uninhabitable landscapes.
That is absolute utter nonsense. There are almost no uninhabitable landscapes on the surface of the earth, near the surface of the earth in the lakes and rivers of the earth, in the seas of the earth, in the skies of the earth and the few local uninhabitable landscapes that do exist are transient, very localized and very soon colonized.
Faith either need to stop asserting such nonsense or provide examples that can be examined because so far all the examples she has mentioned are not uninhabitable and in fact are inhabited.
Those exception are active lava flows, areas of noxious gasses like CO2 bubble zones, areas immediately buried by a catastrophe like volcanic ash or mud slides and all of those are rapidly colonized as soon as conditions change but most extreme environments are inhabitable including volcanic mineral springs, deserts, mud flats, brine lakes, glaciers, snow covered areas, tundra, volcano cones, even bare rock surfaces.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 10:43 PM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 427 (791221)
09-12-2016 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
09-12-2016 8:26 PM


Re: the utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes:
There are almost no uninhabitable landscapes on the surface of the earth, near the surface of the earth in the lakes and rivers of the earth, in the seas of the earth, in the skies of the earth and the few local uninhabitable landscapes that do exist are transient, very localized and very soon colonized.
Nicely said.
Faith either need to stop asserting such nonsense or provide examples that can be examined because so far all the examples she has mentioned are not uninhabitable and in fact are inhabited
Or the rest of us can stop dignifying her offerings with replies. Don't the last couple of dozen or so messages belong in that other thread?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 09-12-2016 8:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:44 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 9:35 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 183 of 427 (791225)
09-13-2016 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
09-12-2016 7:57 PM


Every single rock in the strata is such an example and I would think I've been more than clear about that. Every rock that has tracks and burrows and raindrops and other impressions in it is what I've been talking about. Every single rock layer that covers a vast expanse, and most do, represents a former vast wet sedimentary expanse, which is not a livable environment.
So, the fossils were transported from some older time or environment, but the tracks were made during during low tide periods.
So, why were inoceramid clams all transported to Cretaceous sediments and nowhere else? How were they transported?
And where did they go in the meantime?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 7:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:22 AM edge has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 184 of 427 (791226)
09-13-2016 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by edge
09-13-2016 12:31 AM


Every single rock in the strata is such an example and I would think I've been more than clear about that. Every rock that has tracks and burrows and raindrops and other impressions in it is what I've been talking about. Every single rock layer that covers a vast expanse, and most do, represents a former vast wet sedimentary expanse, which is not a livable environment.
So, the fossils were transported from some older time or environment, but the tracks were made during during low tide periods.
Oh well. The futility is truly remarkable. There is no older time or environment in the Flood scenario. Sigh. That's how OE Geology sorts things, not YE. OE has separate environments in separate time periods represented by each rock in a stratigraphic column. The Flood treats each rock as a layer of sediment that was deposited during the Flood, period. Whatever was transported and ended up in the rock came from no "time period" or "older" environment. It no doubt did have its own environment it came from but I don't know how one would know where that was. As the sediments were being laid down they buried living things.
Sometimes living things were nevertheless able to run across their surface, which in my current scenario would have been while the tide was out.
This whole discussion should be a way to contrast the separated environments of OE, each defined by a slab of rock, with the single scenario of the Flood. The separated environments are assumed to have been livable environments, but the tracks and burrows and raindrops are all made in flat featureless sediment/rock, not in any livable environment. This is the case throughout the whole stratigraphic column wherever such impressions occur in a rock. Since the rocks generally extend quite a distance horizontally in their barren featureless rockishness, this is evidence that there were no livable landscapes represented by any of the strata, there was nothing but rock that was of course originally wet sediment.
(I do apologize by the way for the term "mudflat" which I think confused things. I had been reading about a couple of slabs of dried mud that came recently from the Bay of Fundy with bird tracks and raindrops nicely preserved in them. I think this was from one of Glenn Morton's articles. It makes a nice corroboration of my tidal scenario, where the long time between tides allows the mud to dry out enough to preserve the impressions in it. Anyway I started thinking of all wet sediments as "mud" forgetting that mud is a very specific term to geologists. So every time I said "mudflat" I wasn't thinking particularly of mud but of wet sand or clay or carbonates or any sediment etc.)
So, why were inoceramid clams all transported to Cretaceous sediments and nowhere else?
Or dinosaurs to Mesozoic sediments and so on. I really wish I knew. But meanwhile I can content myself with showing how the distribution of ammonites and trilobites in a stratigraphic column doesn't support evolution, and how tracks and burrows and raindrop impressions on the surface of flat barren featureless extensive strata only serve to show that the OE environment interpretation is nonsense. It would certainly be nice to know why fossils are sorted as they are but there's enough evidence against OE in general to shelve that question for a while.
How were they transported?
By water most likely.
And where did they go in the meantime?
Sigh. There was no "meantime." They got carried to wherever the water dumped them along with its current sediment load, and were buried in the sediment.
Edited by Faith, : fix quote code
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 12:31 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 3:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 185 of 427 (791227)
09-13-2016 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
09-12-2016 10:43 PM


The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
There are almost no uninhabitable landscapes on the surface of the earth, near the surface of the earth in the lakes and rivers of the earth, in the seas of the earth, in the skies of the earth and the few local uninhabitable landscapes that do exist are transient, very localized and very soon colonized.
Nicely said.
For sure. If you say it poetically enough you can get away with all kinds of irrelevant nonsense. You'll even collect a bunch of Cheers from the gallery of Those Who Don't Get It.
What is inhabitable NOW has absolutely nothing to do with the period during which a stratigraphic column was deposited, which is nothing but a stack of slabs of barren rocks that cover great distances and buried every living thing in their path.
This is not just an assertion by a Floodist, it is EVIDENCED by the tracks and other impressions preserved in the surface of the rocks in the strata, surfaces that are as barren as can be and on which the tracks often show a running gait too. These are NOT livable landscapes, these surfaces are ALL great expanses of wet sediments and nothing more. Why should such impressions be preserved on the surfaces of rocks -- many many rocks? Because there were no livable landscapes, ONLY barren expanses of sediments that eventually became the rocks. If there were livable environments nearby it would be unusual to find the tracks of creatures who normally inhabit such environments on the surface of bare sediments.
jar writes:
Faith either need to stop asserting such nonsense or provide examples that can be examined because so far all the examples she has mentioned are not uninhabitable and in fact are inhabited
While this may be true NOW, it is patently untrue for the phenomena of the past which we are discussing. The enormous slabs of rock that make up a stratigraphic column were originally bare flat sediments that covered enormous distances and buried everything as they were deposited. This barrenness is all there was during the deposition of the sediments that became the layers of rocks. OE Geology looks inside the rocks and makes the absurd judgment that they represent former livable landscapes. They are looking into what is in fact a burial ground for a particular segment of the living landscapes that existed before the Flood, a cemetery you could say, but not for a particular time period, simply for a selection of living things that populated the earth before the Flood. It is really quite odd to interpret this cemetery as evidence of a particular environment that is preserved in a particular rock that is different from the environments preserved in the rocks above it and below it.
I wonder if there is anybody out there in Lurker Land who gets it.
Or the rest of us can stop dignifying her offerings with replies.
Oh devoutly do I yearn for that to be the case.
Don't the last couple of dozen or so messages belong in that other thread?
As a matter of fact they do and I'm not sure how it all got onto this thread. I guess the tracks in the rocks are basically the same subject.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 10:43 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2016 8:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2366 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 186 of 427 (791233)
09-13-2016 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
09-13-2016 7:44 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
One flaw in your argument, which you have to ignore as you can't deal with it, is the dating.
Those layers can be dated in various ways and they don't all occur in a single year, or anything close to it. In reality, they are spread over hundreds of millions of years.
That demolishes both YEC in general and your "dead landscapes" argument in particular.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 7:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:10 AM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 187 of 427 (791234)
09-13-2016 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Coyote
09-13-2016 8:54 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
One flaw in your argument, which you have to ignore as you can't deal with it, is the dating.
That's a good point, of course, but that problem may be answered indirectly, for instance by the fossil ammonites and trilobites examples. If allotting millions of years to minimal genetic changes that we know are accomplished in real time now in very short order -- hundreds of years absolute max -- this suggests a flaw not in my argument but in the dating methods. We just need to collect more examples that show this flaw.
Those layers can be dated in various ways and they don't all occur in a single year, or anything close to it. In reality, they are spread over hundreds of millions of years.
That demolishes both YEC in general and your "dead landscapes" argument in particular.
However, the fact that the tracks and other impressions in the rocks had to have occurred in an unlivable environment where there were no livable options, demonstrates the dead landscape, as does the plethora of fossils itself. But it also raises problems with the OE dating dogmas, since a "time period" in which nothing could live rather drastically collapses the time frames involved. It kills the idea of evolution completely for instance, and if evolution isn't the explanation for the fossil succession, the whole scheme of OE timing collapses like a house of cards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2016 8:54 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2016 9:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2016 12:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(5)
Message 188 of 427 (791235)
09-13-2016 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
09-12-2016 10:43 PM


Re: the utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes:
The evidence that what is found in every geological column simply depicts what was once the surface is overwhelming and irrefutable.
First is the geological evidence, direct evidence of terrestrial or marine environments. Second is the evidence of erosion of different parts of layers showing where areas were exposed to erosion and where areas were protected from erosion by being buried. Third are the river channels and valleys that are filled in by an overlying layer. Fourth are the unconformities showing areas that were exposed for long period of weathering and erosion before being recovered by newer materials. Fifth are the angular unconformities which show that the layer was both exposed and tectonically tilted and weathered/eroded before a newer layer of material was deposited on top.
Then there is all the biological evidence. The simplest, most utterly obvious thing is that the samples are found within rocks. There is no way that even Faith magic flood can put a sample inside a rock; so every sample is proof that it happened before the material became rock. Second, the biological samples are all critters that either live in the air, the water or on or near the surface of the earth. Third, there are samples of things that are very fragile and transient, burrows and tracks and nests are great examples. The nests with egg shells still within the nest show that it was buried while undisturbed and not washed away by any imaginary flood. The tracks show they were buried without being washed way by any imaginary flood that would wipe them out just as the incoming and outgoing tide washes away any tracks and sand castles and "j ❤ s". The tracks were obviously laid down at the surface and then covered over intact. Then there are the burrows, again not destroyed by some imaginary flood. And there are the imprints of leaves and tree trunks and all the fossil spores that do not just tell us that there was a surface environment but also what was growing and what the average temperature was and often even what the season was when the sample was buried. Don't forget the paleosols where there are trees with the roots still intact.
Each sample was covered while it was at the soil surface either in a terrestrial or marine environment.
Next is the issue of location.
The evidence shows that the geological processes are common and repeating, the same set of processes from bottom to top. The rocks are familiar types, the same types seen today and the processes are familiar processes, the same processes seen today.
If we look at any geological column what is found is a series of layers that are recognizable as the result of processes that we see going on today. We can then measure those processes as they happen today to get a reference point showing the time necessary to form a given sample.
But the enclosed biological samples are quite different. There we see samples that are far different than what is seen today and in addition an ordered progression from those critters found in the lowest levels to those critter that exist today. No where is that biological superposition not seen.
No where are samples of modern life forms and the life forms from the lowest levels found together except where there is obvious evidence of the layer being disturbed.
The evidence is conclusive. In the past the surface of the earth was habitable and in fact inhabited by biological critters adapted to that environment but different critters than exist today. Just as today, almost every air, surface, near surface and water environment was inhabited. Over time those surfaces were covered over but life continued uninterrupted over all periods. Both the depths of the geological columns and the changes in biological samples over time testify that the earth is very, very, very old.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin till --------> still

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2016 10:43 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:50 AM jar has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2366 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 189 of 427 (791236)
09-13-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
09-13-2016 9:10 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Your response does nothing to address the dating--it merely repeats your dogma that the dating is wrong, somehow, any how!
And scientific dating is far more complex than just radiometric dating. Quite a few examples have been provided to you in these threads, but because you aren't able to deal with the science you resort to denial more than anything.
Quite simply, scientific dating has disproved conclusively the YEC dogma.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:51 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 427 (791237)
09-13-2016 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
09-13-2016 9:35 AM


Re: the utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes:
First is the geological evidence, direct evidence of terrestrial or marine environments.
There is no "direct" evidence of any such thing in any given "time period." There is only rock, and whatever in the rock can be interpreted to suggest some "environment" that never did exist except as an interpretation in somebody's mind.
Since the rocks are thick flat slabs that in the case of marine rocks extend huge distances, even from continent to continent, it is clear that whatever had lived in the marine landscape died as it filled with the sediments that became the rock that extends such distances. The terrestrial landscapes don't extend quite as far but nevertheless they too cover a lot of territory, territory they also buried in sediments although that territory would already be a stack of sediments anyway covering pretty much the whole earth. And if all this is being laid down in episodic tidal encroachments, some poor creatures would have left their tracks and burrows in the sediment because there was nothing BUT sediment everywhere.
The evidence of former environments that is found in the rocks is evidence of the pre-Flood world and certainly not of separate environments representing separate time periods because those are nothing but former sedimentary deposits that are now rocks.
I'll have to come back to the rest of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 9:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 10:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 427 (791238)
09-13-2016 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Coyote
09-13-2016 9:38 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
Dating can't disprove anything if there is incontrovertible evidence that what it purports to date couldn't possibly have existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 09-13-2016 9:38 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2016 10:06 AM Faith has replied
 Message 204 by edge, posted 09-13-2016 2:48 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 192 of 427 (791239)
09-13-2016 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
09-13-2016 9:50 AM


Re: the utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes:
Faith writes:
There is no "direct" evidence of any such thing in any given "time period." There is only rock, and whatever in the rock can be interpreted to suggest some "environment" that never did exist except as an interpretation in somebody's mind.
You keep saying that but never provide any support for such a silly position.
Faith writes:
The evidence of former environments that is found in the rocks is evidence of the pre-Flood world and certainly not of separate environments representing separate time periods because those are nothing but former sedimentary deposits that are now rocks.
You keep says such things but never supply any support for such a silly suggestion.
Sorry Faith but reality again shows you are just making crap (like that term better ? ) up.
An impression of a leaf is direct evidence that a tree was growing in an inhabited landscape at that time.
Tracks are direct evidence that something moved across an landscape (and so by definition that landscape is inhabited) at that time.
Paleosol with tree roots intact is direct evidence of a tree growing in an inhabited landscape at that time.
Sorry Faith but all the evidence shows an Old Earth and Young Earth is simply sill fantasy to be tossed on the trash heap of history.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(2)
Message 193 of 427 (791240)
09-13-2016 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
09-13-2016 9:51 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
The real problem you've got Faith isn't the rocks, it's the dates.
Here's all the dating science that says that the earth is old. There's not much point worrying about what a lanscape is if your ideas are disproven before they start.
quote:
1 >10,000
1.1 Thermoluminescence dating: 10,000
1.2 Dendrochronology: 11,700
1.3 Oxidizable carbon ratio dating: 20,000
1.4 Widmanstatten patterns: >50,000
1.5 Mitochondrial Eve: 99,000
2 >100,000
2.1 Lack of DNA in fossils: 100,000
2.2 Ice layering: 145,000
2.3 Rock varnish: 250,000
2.4 Permafrost: 225,000
2.5 Weathering rinds: 300,000
2.6 Y-chromosomal Adam: 340,000
2.7 Fission track dating: 700,000
3 >1,000,000
3.1 Relativistic jets: >1,000,000
3.2 Space weathering: >1,000,000
3.3 Petrified wood: >1,000,000
3.4 Naica megacrystals: >1,000,000
3.5 Cosmogenic nuclide dating: >1,000,000
3.6 Iron-manganese nodule growth: >1,000,000
3.7 Amino acid racemization: >1,000,000
3.8 Stalactites: >1,000,000
3.9 Geomagnetic reversals: 5,000,000
3.10 Erosion: 6,000,000
4 >10,000,000
4.1 Milankovitch astronomical cycles: 23,030,000
4.2 Sedimentary varves: 20,000,000
4.3 Coral: 25,000,000
4.4 Seabed plankton layering: 56,000,000
4.5 Baptistina asteroid family: 80,000,000
5 >100,000,000
5.1 Continental drift: 200,000,000
5.2 Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds: 200,000,000
5.3 Impact craters: >313,000,000
5.4 Rotation of the Earth: 620,000,000
6 >1,000,000,000
6.1 Helioseismology: 4,460,000,000
6.2 Radioactive decay: 4,540,000,000
6.3 Recession of the Moon: 4,500,000,000
6.4 Gyrochronology: 4,600,000,000
6.5 Globular clusters: >10,000,000,000
6.6 Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 09-13-2016 10:49 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 09-13-2016 11:16 AM Tangle has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2392 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 194 of 427 (791241)
09-13-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tangle
09-13-2016 10:06 AM


Re: The utter nonsense of uninhabitable landscapes in ROCKS:
For Faith and any other YECs who may be lurking here who are wondering about dating, I highly recommend Dan Wonderly's book
"God's Time Records in Ancient Sediments"
. Dan was a geology professor for a short time at Grace College (John Whitcomb was on faculty at the seminary). Dan did not have expertise in radiometric dating, so his book focuses exclusively on non-radiometric evidence for an old earth. The book is a bit dated now, but is still quite good.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2016 10:06 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 427 (791242)
09-13-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Tangle
09-13-2016 10:06 AM


dating ain't an exact science
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence.
Besides, that's such a motley list of contradictory dates you'd think that alone would call the whole dating enterprise into question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Tangle, posted 09-13-2016 10:06 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 09-13-2016 11:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2016 1:13 PM 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